Oral Answers to Questions

WORK AND PENSIONS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Pension Credit

Adam Afriyie: What assessment he has made of the impact of pension credit on the private pension and savings industry.

David Amess: What his assessment is of the impact of pension credit on incentives to save.

David Blunkett: The statistics that we are publishing today show that those in retirement have benefited to the tune of 2.7 million households in receipt of pension credit. That has lifted millions of people out of poverty in retirement and ensured, through the savings credit, that those who have shown thrift and saved above the basic pension level are not damaged in the way that otherwise would be the case. It is precisely because of the complications in relation to avoiding pensioner poverty in years to come that we established Adair Turner's commission and why we have appealed to everyone to join positively in the dialogue that we are having across the country to find a consensus to ensure that, while the pension credit helps to lift people now, they in turn will be able to invest for their own salvation in the years to come.

Adam Afriyie: I thank the Secretary of State for a long answer to a straightforward question. Some 13 per cent. of the population of Windsor are above the age of 75, and I was alarmed to discover at a recent lunch at Age Concern in Dedworth that none of the people to whom I spoke were claiming their full means-tested benefits, largely because they found the forms complex, intrusive and stressful. First, will the Secretary of Secretary tell us how many pensioners fail to claim their full credit? Secondly, will he apologise to pensioners for making the system so complicated?

David Blunkett: I thank the hon. Gentleman very much and welcome his long supplementary question—we are all failed in the House, one way or another, Mr. Speaker.
	The people who have benefited most from the pension credit are women. Some 90 per cent. of single women over retirement age receive the pension credit because of the failure in the past to recognise the change in demography and in working and social patterns and, of course, the opt-out from national insurance contributions. I suggest that, in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, it would be much better to go out and advocate that people take up their right—it is a right—than to try to blame the Government for the fact that people are not taking up an option that has, over the past eight years, raised the basic pension entitlement from £62 to the new pension credit entitlement of £109.45. That is a tremendous achievement, and we should build on it.

David Amess: Although I might admire the Secretary of State's presentation of his case, surely he realises that he is losing all credibility in this matter when 1.5 million people who should take up the benefit do not do so, when the Minister for Pensions Reform was barracked by the pensioners parliament and when, finally, the Pensions Commission's report says that means-tested benefits are a positive disincentive to save.

David Blunkett: I have always enjoyed the hon. Gentleman's flattery, and I shall do so in future. I remember that he once praised the National Union of Teachers' attack on me, and we now hear the pensioners parliament in Blackpool being applauded for attacking my hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions Reform, who is doing a first-rate job in explaining how getting 2.7 million households out of poverty is a good thing, not a bad thing, and something of which we should all be very proud. The answer must be to get individuals, employers and the Government to put together a programme for the future that meets the impossible aspirational circle according to which people want to live longer, to live better, to retire earlier and want someone else to pay. We in Government need to have answers to those questions, which is why we are working on the dialogue with the Pensions Commission to find answers for the future.

Frank Field: Does the Secretary of State accept that, with pension credit, the Government have offered more help to the poorest pensioners than any other Government in our history, but that, because it is means-tested, that credit is not sustainable in the longer run? Does he look to the Turner commission to come up with one or perhaps two long-term solutions that will impose a shelf-life on the pension credit?

David Blunkett: My right hon. Friend has made a substantial contribution over many years to this debate, and I am looking to the commission to be able to lay out a framework on which the Government can, with the dialogue that I have described, reach a consensus across parties and across the country. We have invited the political parties in the House to become part of that consensus. Of course, simplicity does not always yield the results that we require in circumstances where an historic failure to save and where people were encouraged to opt out of making their contributions have led us to take immediate action. It is absolutely true, however, that providing incentives to people to save for their retirement, encouraging people to work out what income they think they should live on in retirement and helping them to achieve that goal makes more sense than having to bail people out of poverty—doing that is not the reverse of ensuring that it does not have to be done in years to come.

Anne Begg: Many pensioners in Aberdeen are delighted by the pension credit and have been claiming it. A lot of people, many of whom were women, told me as I was campaigning during the election that they felt that they had never been so well off. However, although the take-up of the guarantee credit is quite good, more could be done to encourage people to take up the savings element of the credit. In Aberdeen, the work of the Pension Service has been very good, so that is no reflection on its efforts. It has done quite a lot of outreach work, which is certainly paying dividends. Will my right hon. Friend encourage the Pension Service throughout the country to do more outreach work, through which it goes into communities to try to track down those who should be claiming what they are entitled to, but are not?

David Blunkett: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Many people feel aggrieved as they believe that because they have saved they are not entitled to the pension credit, although, under the savings credit, they would in fact be able to gain. It is thus important to reach out to them. We have the task of ensuring that we use cross-referencing methods, as we do with other benefits, to ensure that take-up in one area encourages people to take up in another, but we still have some way to go.

Malcolm Rifkind: Will the Secretary of State confirm the statement he gave in an interview with the Financial Times last Monday in which he said that when considering future entitlement to pension credit and other pensions, he intended to take into account capital as well as income? Does he realise that if he goes ahead with that proposal, it will be the first time in our history that people's capital, including the value of their homes, is taken into account when considering whether they receive pension credit or other forms of pension? Can he explain to the House where that appeared in the Labour party's election address?

David Blunkett: I warmly welcome the right hon. and learned Gentleman to our first Question Time. I simply advise him not to read The Daily Express—[Hon. Members: "It was the Financial Times."] And not to take too literally The Sunday Times's version of the Financial Times interview, which is on the website, so everyone with the good will and intelligence to do so can read it for themselves. The interview says nothing of the sort. It says, as I have said over eight years in Government, that assets are absolutely crucial for the future, and that there will be a gap between those who inherit assets in the form of housing from parents and grandparents and those who have always been in rented property. That will add to the generational disadvantage of one group and the advantage of another. When building retirement income, we should all take into account the fact that we are talking about assets and not just pension investment, but we should not somehow penalise people. If people would simply like to read the interview, I would be proud to have a debate with them about how we take on that challenge for the future.

Malcolm Rifkind: I happen to have read the interview and indeed have it in front of me.

David Blunkett: Read it out.

Malcolm Rifkind: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's invitation. Does he accept that he said in the interview—these are his words, not mine—on considering future pension entitlement:
	"it will be about the capital assets that people have and not just their income. We need to put that into the equation, which is what I intend to do in the next few months"?

David Blunkett: Yes, that is exactly what I said. It represents exactly the same debate that the right hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to have through his private Member's Bill about how we give people the ability through annuities, much more radically, to translate the investment that they hold into realisable assets that can be spent in retirement. It is exactly the same issue that he wishes to debate around annuities. Next time he wants to take me on, I hope that he will read full quotes from the Financial Times and not just a partial one.

Diane Abbott: The Government are to be congratulated on lifting many pensioners out of poverty through the pension credit, but if it is the case that more than 1.5 million people who are entitled to claim do not do so, does the Secretary of State agree that a worrying number of people are thus trapped in the direst poverty? As individual MPs we can all encourage pensioners with whom we come into contact to claim, but do the Government have further plans to bear down on the worryingly large number of people who do not claim when they are entitled to?

David Blunkett: The figures that I cited show a substantial drop in the 1.5 million, which is a positive outcome of the campaign for people to take up the credit. Whatever the disagreements that people may have on so-called means-testing—the criticism varies depending on whether they like child tax credit and the working tax credit or do not like the pension credit—it is beholden on all of us, including those who speak on behalf of people who are in retirement, to sell that message.
	As I said, we have further plans for cross-referencing those who receive other forms of benefit. We have done that already, as will be revealed later this afternoon, in relation to getting more people to take up council tax benefit. We can do much more on people taking up pension credit.

David Laws: May I belatedly welcome both the Secretary of State and the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman, the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), to their new responsibilities? The Liberal Democrats are keen to play a constructive and positive role in finding a consensus on pensions. Is there a consensus in the Government on the future of means-tested benefits, such as the pension credit? In particular, is there a consensus between the Secretary of State and the Chancellor of the Exchequer? If so, what is it?

David Blunkett: I would like to reciprocate the hon. Gentleman's welcome. It would have been easier had the leader of the Liberal Democrats not laid out last week, in such detail and with such prescription, what they do not favour before tomorrow's meeting, to which they are invited.

David Laws: They were principles.

David Blunkett: I am being hectored on the idea of principles. I did not think that many of them were principles, but that is not unusual for the Liberal Democrats. There is absolute unanimity between the Chancellor and myself that it is right to lift people out of immediate poverty in retirement. The pension credit does precisely that.

Phyllis Starkey: In the Secretary of State's earlier response, he said that women are particular beneficiaries of the pension credit. Given that women in general have a pension that is about a third of that of male pensioners, will he assure me that in any analysis his Department does of different options on pensions policy, the effect on women is looked at separately?

David Blunkett: Yes. I have already raised with Adair Turner how critical it is to build on the discussions that have taken place. In addition to women's caring responsibilities for children and relatives as they near retirement age, there is a clear anomaly that arose from the different social, economic and family make-up after the second world war and the advice that was given to them on the opt-out from national insurance. It is crucial that we see that as a critical strand and that the solutions we find take those caring duties into account.

Pensions Commission

Julian Lewis: How long he expects the consultation on the findings of the Pensions Commission to last.

Stephen Timms: The consultation on the commission's first report ended in January. It expects to publish its final report before the end of the year. We are looking for a long-term solution to the provision of adequate income in retirement, building on recent improvements. We will be encouraging wide discussion ahead of the report and will continue the debate and consensus-building after the report is published, for as long as we need to.

Julian Lewis: I hope that the Minister read the Secretary of State's comments to the Financial Times as carefully as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) did because he would have seen the Secretary of State admit that the Government have not begun to set their collective mind towards reaching a consensus on the way forward, even though he says that he wants the country to do so. Should not the Government get a bit of a move on, bearing in mind the collapse in savings, the collapse in final salary schemes and the accelerating collapse in pensioner morale?

Stephen Timms: Actually, retirement income has risen faster than earnings in recent years, with the largest rise in the incomes of the less well-off, reflecting our priority of tackling poverty in retirement and the big problem left behind by the previous Conservative Government. We need to make decisions now to avoid difficulties in 15 or 20 years' time, given in particular the rapid, and extremely welcome, rise in longevity. It is right to take the time to build up a consensus so that we agree on the right way forward. I hope that even the hon. Gentleman might contribute to that.

Madeleine Moon: Will the Minister, as part of his consideration of the consultation on the Pensions Commission, examine the plight of carers such as Mrs. Hill of Aberkenfig in my constituency, who had provided care for her daughter for 41 years but who, on reaching retirement age, lost her invalid care allowance and then had to provide the care in return for only her pension? Can we consider how carers can benefit as they carry on caring into pensionable age?

Stephen Timms: My hon. Friend raises an important subject. As she knows, the Government's introduction of the state second pension made significant progress in allowing carers to build up a second pension, but the question of pensions for carers needs to be considered in the debate as we seek a long-term solution to the pensions challenge.

Julian Brazier: We all welcome a reduction in pensioner poverty, but does the Minister accept that the price paid through means-tested benefits is an aggregation of benefit withdrawal and tax at the margin for more than half our pensioners, which has sent a message to the next generation that it simply is not worth saving? Does it not worry him that the savings ratio has more than halved under the Labour Government and that 45 per cent. of people now in the work force are no longer willing to make a contribution toward their own retirement?

Stephen Timms: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will tell people who raise such matters with him that it certainly is worth saving for retirement and that if people have got the impression that it is not, they are mistaken. Under the previous Government, many pensioners were left behind and were in difficult circumstances in 1997—for example, a lot of single pensioners were on income support of less than £70 a week, whereas all are now entitled to at least £109 a week. In designing future systems, we must not allow acute pensioner poverty to rise again. However, I repeat: it is worth saving for retirement and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will tell people that if they want an income in retirement of more than £109 a week, they need to save.

Pensioner Poverty

Julia Goldsworthy: How many pensioners are living in poverty in the south-west.

Stephen Timms: Commenting on retirement incomes after housing costs, the Institute for Fiscal Studies said recently that
	"pensioner poverty continues to fall dramatically".
	The proportion of retired people whose income after housing costs is less than 60 per cent. of median income has fallen from 28 per cent. in 1996–97 to 20 per cent. in 2003–04, even though median income has risen sharply in that period. The proportion in the south-west is less than the national average, standing at 19 per cent.

Julia Goldsworthy: Is the Minister aware that this year the average South West Water water and sewerage bill increased by 13 per cent. whereas pensions increased by only 3.1 per cent.? The vast majority of pensioners have seen pension increases swallowed up by rising utility and council tax bills. Is it not time that the Government recognise that the only way to ensure dignity and security for older people is through a decent basic state pension, not through an intimidating and complex means-tested pension credit system, on which an estimated 90,000 south-west pensioners are missing out?

Stephen Timms: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, there has been a big increase in the take-up of pension credit. That is the major reason, although not the only one, for the dramatic fall in pensioner poverty that the IFS identified. We must continue to work to increase the take-up of pension credit, but good progress has been made, which I think the hon. Lady will welcome. I understand that, during the current debate, many people will make the case for increasing the basic state pension. The problem with that is the cost of doing so—that is why the link was broken in the first place. However, I hope that we will debate all the issues fully in the coming months.

Linda Gilroy: I thank my hon. Friend on behalf of the 5,500 pensioners in my area who are in receipt of pension credit, about 4,000 of whom are, I believe, also in receipt of the minimum income guarantee. Many of them stopped me during the election campaign to tell me that it had transformed their lives.
	I raised water charges with my hon. Friend's predecessor, who took an interest in the matter. At £100 more than the average, charges in the south-west are by far the highest in the country. Will my hon. Friend take an interest in the outcome of the cross-governmental review of water affordability, on which his Department was represented, in particular the pilot scheme in the south-west of England to examine how benefit checks combined with water efficiency measures and water metering can have an impact on dealing with poverty and low incomes?

Stephen Timms: Like my hon. Friend and me, many hon. Members will have spoken to people during the election campaign whose income before 1997 was less than £70 a week, but is now £109 a week. As she rightly said, that has transformed their circumstances. We certainly must not go back to the days of acute pensioner poverty that was experienced by far too many people. I am certainly glad to take an interest in the proposed pilot study in the south-west, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the long-term work that she has done on the issue. I am pleased that WaterVoice is making a positive contribution to the development of the pilot, and I shall watch its progress with great interest.

Pension Credit

Anne McIntosh: What assessment he has made of the potential impact of compulsory saving for pensions on pension credit.

David Blunkett: The question of the potential impact of compulsory savings on pensions and pension credit is something that the Pensions Commission was asked to look at, and it is studying that at the moment. The more people save, whether compulsorily or voluntarily, the less reliant they are on any form of income-related testing and the less likely they are to be in poverty. The question for everyone is whether it is the role of Government, over and above the basic and second pension, to introduce compulsory savings for individuals or employers, and we shall conduct that debate in the coming years.

Anne McIntosh: We heard earlier that fewer people are taking up the pension credit, and we also heard from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) that the Secretary of State could possibly seize capital assets as part of a pension plan. Would the right hon. Gentleman consider increasing compulsory savings towards pension plans without putting that to the public at a general election?

David Blunkett: I made it absolutely clear that I am not ruling out options before we have had a chance to consider them, but that does not mean that we have ruled them in.
	Many more people, not fewer people, are taking up pension credit, as the statistics show. It does not help the debate to turn statistics on their head. If 2.7 million households are benefiting, and that was not the case a year ago, it is a plus, not a minus. This debate is critical to people's future retirement income and therefore their living standards and benefits, so if we used the available statistics and merely debated those things about which we disagree, the nation would be a lot better off.

Rob Marris: My right hon. Friend is understandably hesitant about compulsion. Can he assure me that he will be equally hesitant about continuing tax relief for pension contributions, given that it is intensely regressive, with 50 per cent. going to the top 10 per cent. of earners, and 25 per cent. going to the top 2.5 per cent. of earners? I urge him to look at that option while he is looking at compulsion.

David Blunkett: Obviously, the commission will look in detail at the incentives that we need to provide for people on a range of income levels, but it is also important that we do not distort the debate on taxation and reliefs in general. Indeed, I think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be on my back if I did. My hon. Friend has made a valid point, which I have been making myself over the past six weeks. We need to get the incentives right for people who find it difficult to save because of the income that they receive.

John Redwood: Does the Minister accept that many people who receive pension credit do so because their private pension funds have been badly damaged by the Chancellor's tax increases? Does he accept that they do not regard as a solution an alternative pension policy that says they must work until they drop or sell their house to pay for their own pension? They do not want forced saving—they want their money back, as the Chancellor took it.

David Blunkett: Perhaps I could lay to rest a misapprehension that Conservative Members have expressed throughout the afternoon when they have said that I have talked about people selling their own house. I was actually talking about realising a very large asset that someone has inherited from a relative. Like annuities, that asset could be realised when they wanted to spend the money. It is important that those people, as well as individuals considering their income in retirement, take that into account. If we could get that right we would all be a lot better off.

David Taylor: I acknowledge what the Secretary of State said—that compulsory saving would reduce the call for pension credit to support income in retirement—but would it not be more effective still to implement the recommendation of the National Pensioners Convention that the basic state retirement pension be set at the basic pension credit level of £109? Would not that simplify everything and raise take-up as well?

David Blunkett: I am not sure whether that would simplify everything. It would certainly ensure that we spent billions more on people who were well above the current pension credit limit, and it would do so at a time when the Government have had to spend £11 billion on compensation over the past 10 years, most of it—98 per cent. of it since this Government were elected—in sorting out the scandal of mis-selling that cost individuals and the nation a great deal, both in heartache and in hard cash.

Payment Arrangements (Bank Accounts)

Michael Weir: What recent representations he has received relating to his policy of direct payment of pensions and benefits into bank accounts.

Anne McGuire: Neither I nor my ministerial colleagues have received any recent formal representations, although Ministers regularly respond to letters and questions in the House about direct payment matters.Over 15 million people—97 per cent. of our customers—are now being paid into an account, and very few are reporting any problems.

Michael Weir: The Minister will be aware that National Australia bank—the parent bank of both the Clydesdale and Yorkshire banks—has recently announced a closure programme. Several of the branches in the first round of closures in Scotland were the last remaining bank branches in those communities. The policy of direct payment has already undermined many sub-post offices. Many communities have also lost their banks and many more are likely to do so. Will the Minister look again at the policy, otherwise, the only thing left to many pensioners will be to rely on fee-charging automated teller machines?

Anne McGuire: I do not wish to comment on the commercial decisions made by any particular bank, including those that have not become involved in partnership with the Post Office to allow full access to their accounts. However, 98 per cent. of pensioners now have their pensions paid by direct payment. I do not want the hon. Gentleman to establish a climate of fear out there about pensions having to be paid through ATMs. There are 15,000 post offices and 32,300 free ATMs where people who get their payments by direct payment can access their cash.

Henry Bellingham: During the election I visited a number of small sub-post offices that have lost substantial business because of automated credit transfer. One particular concern is pensioners who used to rely on a carer, a friend or a member of the family to collect their pension. Under the old book system, anyone could collect it. Under Post Office card accounts, only one person can be nominated. What does the Minister intend to do about the problem?

Anne McGuire: That was part of the problem with the old book system—anybody could collect the pension, even if the pension book was stolen, dropped, lost or whatever, and it cost £50 million a year in fraud. We should recognise that we have built in a system that is more secure and has dealt with fraud. People, particularly older people, can nominate a third party to cash a cheque of up £450, or can have a separate card with a separate personal identification number so that their pension can be collected. But the message needs to go out that pensioners and those who receive direct payments can still get their cash on the day that they want it at their local post office. I should think that is to be applauded.

Child Support Agency

Annette Brooke: If he will make a statement on the Child Support Agency.

John Mann: What time scale has been set for all Child Support Agency claimants to be assessed on the new system.

James Plaskitt: The problems with the Child Support Agency are well known to all of us in the Chamber and to very many of our constituents. In April we appointed a new chief executive and as a priority we have asked him to address those problems and to carry out a wide-ranging review of the agency's operations and structures. He will report his findings to us in the summer and will set out his proposals to address those problems and improve the agency's performance, including the transfer of cases to the new system.He will be looking at short, medium and long-term actions.

Annette Brooke: New system or old, what measures will the Minister take to ensure that statements of earnings submitted by the self-employed are checked more effectively? Does he consider it sensible to transfer some of those operations to the Inland Revenue?

James Plaskitt: The self-employed present the CSA with particular difficulties, which it is important to deal with effectively. We have introduced the possibility of communications with the Inland Revenue on information about the income of the self-employed, which has helped the CSA with some of those cases, but we should not transfer the whole case load to the Inland Revenue. Agencies are not queuing up to take over that responsibility, and the Inland Revenue also has difficulties with the self-employed, so the hon. Lady's proposal runs the risk of changing one set of problems for another. We will listen to the new chief executive to see whether we can resolve the problems in the CSA and get its house into order.

John Mann: The Secretary of State loves targets for the public sector, and so do I: will a clear time scale be set publicly in the summer for all CSA claimants to be assessed on the new system?

James Plaskitt: The important thing is to make sure that the new system, which currently contains some 300,000 cases, works properly. It would not make sense to set an arbitrary timetable to achieve the transfers. Once we are confident that the IT is working, we can examine the transfers process, but I do not want to consider the transfers process until we are confident that the system will work effectively.

David Gauke: Given that we currently run a dual system and that some of those on the old system would be better off under the new system, what legal advice have the Government taken to ensure that they are not vulnerable to a claim for compensation?

James Plaskitt: The important issue is making sure that we resolve the difficulties in the CSA, which is precisely why the new chief executive is conducting a thorough assessment of the current situation and examining all the issues. When we receive his report in the summer, we will examine what action can be taken to deal with the problems and to start to get the CSA into order.

Joan Humble: Is my hon. Friend aware of the anger felt by many parents who were on the old system and who are waiting for their cases to be migrated on to the new system? In many cases, payments under the new system will be substantially lower than under the old system. Some parents fear that it will take several years for payments under the new system to reach the correct level, and some of their children will be over 16 by that time. What reassurances can my hon. Friend give to people in that difficult situation?

James Plaskitt: I entirely understand my hon. Friend's point. As I have said, 463,000 cases are subject to the new formula. Maintenance settlements under the new formula are different from those under the old formula—all hon. Members have dealt with maintenance settlements under the old formula that are difficult to understand. The transfer of cases to the new formula will involve a phased process to allow both the non-resident parent and the parent with care to get used to the new formula. It has been suggested that that process will involve a three-year phasing, which is one of the issues that the chief executive is examining, and we will be interested to see what he says about it in his report.

Paul Goodman: I congratulate the Minister on his appointment but remind him that, speaking about the CSA a few weeks ago at Work and Pensions questions, when he was asking questions rather than answering them, he said:
	"We are fast approaching a point at which we shall be running two CSAs in parallel. That is not sustainable. Whose fault is it, and when will it be put right?"—[Official Report, 8 November 2004; Vol. 426, c. 553.]
	So I ask him, whose fault is it, and when will it be put right?

James Plaskitt: That is why I am delighted to be where I am now; I know what the questions are on the CSA and know what needs to be answered. I am looking forward to reading what the chief executive tells us because, like him, I want to get to grips with these issues. Far too many people are caught in the web of the CSA and experiencing difficulties, and we want to get those matters resolved as soon as possible. However, the important thing is to ensure that we have bottomed out the problems, that the systems work, and that the IT is sorted out. Then, we can start to sort out the agency's problems.

Council Tax Benefit

Jonathan Djanogly: What steps he is taking to increase the take-up of council tax benefit.

James Plaskitt: We are working with local authorities to encourage people to apply for council tax benefit. For example, in February we advised local authorities of around 340,000 cases that we had identified where pension credit was in payment but there was no evidence of a live council tax benefit claim. That has already resulted in 5,000 new awards of council tax benefit to the poorest pensioners, and around 4,000 more claims are being processed.

Jonathan Djanogly: What was the cost of the Government's most recent campaign to increase the take-up of council tax benefit?

James Plaskitt: The important thing, as I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree, is to ensure that those who are entitled—[Hon. Members: "Answer."] No, no—it is to ensure that those who are entitled to council tax benefit get it, because it is a very important benefit. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is active in his constituency in contacting pensioners who have not taken up the council tax benefit and encouraging them to do so. That is what we are doing, and it is money well spent.

Tony Baldry: The Minister will know that I introduced a private Member's Bill on this subject during the last Parliament. More than £1 billion of council tax benefit goes unclaimed, mostly by pensioners. Will the Minister estimate how much council tax benefit will go unclaimed this time next year? Just how effective does he believe his schemes will be in ensuring that poorer pensioners get the council tax benefits to which they are entitled?

James Plaskitt: I am anxious to ensure that the amount unclaimed comes down, and we have embarked on a series of initiatives to achieve that. For example, winter fuel payments, which go of course to every pensioner household, will be accompanied by a flyer promoting council tax benefit. I should also tell the hon. Gentleman that we launched a £13 million fund in January under the partnership fund. That is providing two years of funding to around 170 organisations across Britain to finance local initiatives to improve take-up of these benefits.

Occupational Pension Schemes

David Jones: If he will list the occupational pension schemes whose members have been affected by the wind-up of their scheme and will not receive assistance from the financial assistance scheme.

Stephen Timms: The draft regulations for the financial assistance scheme will be tabled later this week. An indicative list of 380 potentially eligible schemes was published on 22 February. Formal decisions on eligibility will be made once Parliament has agreed the regulations.

David Jones: Does the Minister accept that £400 million over 20 years, welcome though it is, is wholly inadequate in providing meaningful compensation to those pensioners who have been affected by the wind-up of their schemes? Indeed, informed commentators estimate that closer to £5 billion is required. That being the case, will he give serious consideration to Conservative proposals that the Government should utilise unclaimed funds in the hands of financial institutions to bolster the fund?

Stephen Timms: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman forwelcoming the Government's commitment of £400 million. As we have said, we will review the funding and other aspects of the scheme after three years. I was previously the Treasury Minister responsible for banks and building societies, so I am familiar with the work done on the scale of unclaimed assets. I discovered in that role that there is a long list of ideas about how to spend those resources but rather less clarity about the amount. Work is going on to establish that, but I caution the hon. Gentleman against believing that the assets will be available for this purpose.

Richard Burden: My hon. Friend will be aware that there has been some concern about whether pensioners from the MG Rover pension scheme will be assisted through the financial assistance scheme, particularly as more than one company in that group is not currently in administration. I welcome my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's very firm commitment on sorting the matter out. Can my hon. Friend update us on that, particularly as regards the rather perverse situation of people who have taken early retirement but could end up with less money unless we get their position sorted out?

Stephen Timms: The Pension Protection Fund, rather than the financial assistance scheme, is the likely source of help for former employees of MG Rover. I acknowledge that it is a worrying time for MG Rover pensioners. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the comments of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. We believe that it remains a question of when, not if a PPF assessment period will start, and we are considering closely the way in which the PPF regulations work and how they are likely to apply in the case that my hon. Friend raises.

Julie Kirkbride: Like the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden), I take a great interest in the Rover pension scheme. However, I would be grateful if the Minister could be a little clearer about the way in which it will be sorted out. He will know that no application can be made to the Pension Protection Fund because one of the Rover companies is still trading. Until they are all in administration, no application can be made. How can an application be made to the fund while the company is still trading? Until the application is made, no money will be forthcoming under the Government's legislation.

Stephen Timms: We have been looking for some time at the impact of the regulations on the Pension Protection Fund. We propose to make several amendments in the coming weeks to reflect issues that have arisen through the operation of the regulations so far. When the hon. Lady sees the proposals, I believe that she will welcome their likely impact on the case that she raises.

John Denham: APW, formerly known as Veros, is nowhere near as prestigious or as politically sensitive as Rover, but for my constituents who have lost 80 per cent. of their pensions, the problems are no less real. The Minister has agreed to meet a delegation this week, and I thank him for that. However, will he consider the specific group of schemes whose trustees were forced to wind up the schemes last year, thus falling between the financial assistance scheme and the Pension Protection Fund, and for whom nothing is currently on offer?

Stephen Timms: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the meeting that we shall hold, and I look forward to the discussion with his constituents. The financial assistance scheme is for defined benefit occupational schemes when the sponsoring employer is insolvent. It is important that solvent employers stand behind their pension promises. I am sure that when we meet we shall have a full discussion of the circumstances in the case that my right hon. Friend raises.

Nigel Waterson: Is not the Minister a bit embarrassed that more than year has passed since the financial assistance scheme was unveiled in the House, yet not a penny piece has been paid out to any pensioners, including those who face penury or suffer from a terminal illness? Why, in the meantime, have the Government spent their energies on trying to restrict eligibility and the level of pay-outs under the FAS? Speaking for the 60,000 pensioners and others whose cases are yet to be tackled, will the Minister agree to bring forward his review of the grossly inadequate funding for the FAS?

Stephen Timms: We have been making good progress on setting up the FAS. I made the point earlier that the draft regulations will be published this week. I hope, contrary to a press report today, that we may be in a position to make the first payments before the end of the calendar year. We have been careful throughout not to raise people's expectations unfairly. It would be wrong to commit to a specific date for making the first payments before Parliament has agreed the regulations. It remains our position that we will review the funding and other aspects of the FAS after three years.

Incapacity Benefit Claimants

David Borrow: What steps his Department is taking to help claimants of incapacity benefit into work in Lancashire.

Margaret Hodge: Through our new, innovative programmes, which we have called pathways to work, incapacity benefit recipients can receive one-to-one support from a personal adviser. They can access services to help them manage their condition, and there are financial incentives to support them back into work. At the end of March, we had successfully helped 1,392 people back into work in the east Lancashire pilot. From October, customers in west Lancashire will also be able to access the service, as will a third of all incapacity benefits claimants by October 2006.

David Borrow: I thank my right hon. Friend for her reply. May I urge her to extend the east Lancashire pilot into affluent constituencies such as mine as speedily as possible? The problems experienced by people on long-term incapacity benefit are just as great in relatively affluent areas, where many people get stuck on incapacity benefit. They need the certainty that if they move off incapacity benefit and into work and things do not work out, they will still have a chance to go back on to that benefit rather than on to very basic allowances.

Margaret Hodge: The early evidence from the pathways to work pilots is extremely positive. In fact, in those areas, six times as many people are moving away from a life of dependency on incapacity benefit into a life of opportunity in work. I am as anxious as my hon. Friend to learn from those pilots and to extend that good practice across the country as fast as we can.

Women Pensioners

Vera Baird: What steps he is taking to increase the number of women who receive a full basic state pension in their own right.

Anne McGuire: The proportion of women retiring with a full basic state pension will rise substantially over the next 20 years or so, although many will still not have a full record. The introduction of home responsibilities protection in 1978 and other recent measures, including the minimum wage, tax credits and better child care, have improved women's ability to build up their own state pension.

Vera Baird: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Does she accept, however, that the credits given to women while they are caring for children or elders as well as holding down one or perhaps two part-time jobs are hopelessly inadequate for the provision of a basic state pension? The amounts involved are growing only very slightly and very slowly. In a recent debate in Westminster Hall, it was estimated that at the current rate of progress, it would take about 70 years for all women to receive a basic state pension. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's predecessor referred to this problem as a national disgrace. How is it going to be tackled?

Anne McGuire: One of the principles behind our reform is that any new system should deliver for women and carers, and all options for reform will be assessed against that criterion. My hon. and learned Friend is quite correct; many women have been left behind in regard to their eligibility for a full state pension, largely as a result of the demographic, cultural and social situations in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s. There is now a commitment to make pensions work for women, and I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will participate in forming the consensus that we are trying to establish around creating a pension scheme that truly delivers for women and carers.

Tim Boswell: I welcome the Minister to her new position and agree with a great deal of the comments about the historical basis of the problem of women's pensions, which is not in dispute. Will she acknowledge, however, that it is not necessary to jettison the contributory principle in order to address the problem? The way forward already suggested by the Conservatives would involve the better acknowledgement of any cash contributions made, the re-examination of the provision that rules out any pension unless a quarter of the record has been completed, and the proposal that there should be better acknowledgement of all the different kinds of family responsibility that people undertake as part of their normal life cycle. In that way, women could build up good credits and the problem would begin to reverse itself more quickly.

Anne McGuire: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. I agree that we need to look at ways in which women and carers who are not in employment build up their state pension eligibility. Part of the solution will be delivered by the home responsibilities protection; another part will come from carers' allowances and from credit on the majority of benefits, such as jobseeker's allowance. We have an open mind about how we are going to ensure that tomorrow's pensioners have a decent and fair income in retirement. That is why we have undertaken to publish our own analysis and to look at the specific issue of women and pensions.

Economic Inactivity (South Wales)

Huw Irranca-Davies: If he will meet Ministers in the National Assembly for Wales Government and in Westminster to discuss economic inactivity in south Wales valleys.

David Blunkett: I very much look forward to returning to Wales shortly, and to visiting the want to work pilots. I shall be able to point out, as will my hon. Friend in his constituency in the Bridgend local authority area, that inactivity rates have been reduced and that activity rates have risen from 66.5 per cent. when we were elected in 1997 to 72 per cent. today.
	My hon. Friend will know, as I do from representing a south Yorkshire seat, that many of those who are inactive today were made redundant by the Conservative party in the 1980s and 1990s and have languished on incapacity benefit ever since. We need to ensure that that never happens again.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I thank my right hon. Friend for that comprehensive answer. He will know of a report published last year with the catchy title "The Socio-economic Characteristics of the South Wales Valleys in a Broader Context". It points out that the south Wales valleys are lagging behind not just the rest of Wales but most of England, owing to poor education, poor transport and the large number of people on long-term incapacity benefit. Huge progress has been made, but in reforming incapacity benefit, should we not adopt an approach that recognises the worth of every individual, and recognises that the best way of ensuring the mental and physical well-being of many is to ensure that they return to work? Should we not also give much better protection to those who cannot return to work?

David Blunkett: I entirely agree. The best form of welfare is work. We need to help those who can and protect those who cannot. We will do that, which is a promise and not a threat. Seven years ago in south Wales I met someone who had had a heart bypass and who thought, at the age of 42, that he should write himself off and never work again. I never again want to meet someone in that position. If people do not write themselves off, we will not write them off.

Child Tax Credit

Danny Alexander: If he will make a statement on the transfer to child tax credit of the remaining families with children in receipt of income support and income-based jobseeker's allowance.

James Plaskitt: All new claimants for income support and jobseeker's allowance receive child tax credits rather than an increase in their benefits. We have always made it clear that the timing of the transfer of cases to tax credits will be subject to a final review. We are concluding that review, and an announcement will be made in due course. Meanwhile, I stress that no one is losing out: the increases in the benefits associated with children are set at the same level as child tax credit.

Danny Alexander: I am grateful for the Minister's confirmation that the transfer has been delayed yet again. Given the problems and the real hardship caused to nearly 2 million families by tax credit overpayments and the reclaiming of the amounts involved, has the Minister spoken to the Treasury about the level of income protection in the tax credit system that is available to families who are among the most vulnerable in society?

James Plaskitt: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General has asked HM Revenue and Customs to look at ways of helping families to understand when they should report income changes.

Carers

Lindsay Hoyle: If he will make a statement on support for carers.

Anne McGuire: Depending on their personal circumstances, carers have access to the full range of social security benefits. Special help is also available for carers on low incomes through the carer premium in income-related benefits and the additional amount for carers in pension credit. We have made carer's allowance available to carers aged over 65. We have also increased the carer premium by £10 a week in addition to annual increases. Other support services are provided by the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Skills in England, and the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales.

Lindsay Hoyle: I am sure my hon. Friend would agree that carers are unsung heroes and that the health service would grind to a halt without them. What can she do to ensure that the allowance is taken up? We know that money is available, but we also know that people do not claim their entitlement. What can my hon. Friend do to help those people to claim the money due to them and to ensure that more funds are available for the future?

Anne McGuire: I agree with my hon. Friend about the role of carers in society. Like many Members, I was pleased to celebrate carers week last week, and I am sure that many of us visited our local carer centres.
	About 437,000 carers currently receive carer's allowance, but as my hon. Friend says, carers' individual circumstances vary. The Department has stressed the need for us to ensure that they find out exactly what they are entitled to, and we are making every effort to provide information through our departmental networks, through doctors' surgeries and through citizens advice bureaux in order to increase take-up where appropriate.

MG Rover Pensioners

Peter Luff: What representations he has received on behalf of MG Rover pensioners about the security of their pensions.

Stephen Timms: We have received a number of representations and, as I said earlier, I recognise that this is a worrying time for MG Rover pensioners. Existing pensioners are receiving their pensions in full. We believe that it remains a question of when, not if, an assessment period under the pension protection fund will start for the MG Rover scheme.

Peter Luff: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his sensitive reply to that question and to earlier questions on the subject during Question Time, which contrasted with the gross insensitivity of the Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform, who said that skilled engineers should go and work at Tesco.
	What mechanisms will be used to introduce the amendments that the Minister for Pensions Reform proposes for the pension protection fund, and what will be the likely time scale for those amendments?

Stephen Timms: I hope that we will be able to come forward quite quickly with our amendments. As I said earlier, we have been looking for some time at the way in which the regulations have been working in their early months. We have identified a number of issues that we need to deal with. I hope that we will be able to come forward with those changes very soon.

European Council

Tony Blair: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement about the European Council held in Brussels on 16–17 June.
	This European Council was essentially about two subjects: the consequences of the no votes in the referendums in France and the Netherlands; and the financial perspectives, the budget ceilings for the European Union for 2007–13.
	In respect of the constitutional treaty, the 10 member states that had ratified were anxious that ratification continue. But realistically, given the no votes in France and the Netherlands, ratification cannot succeed unless and until those votes change. Moreover, the Dutch Prime Minister, rightly and inevitably, said frankly that there was no prospect of his bringing back the treaty for any sort of new decision in this Dutch Parliament. As a result, whatever words are used in the Council conclusions, standing the results of the French and Dutch referendums, the treaty cannot proceed. It is therefore sensible instead to have a period of reflection, in which the critical questions as to Europe's future direction are debated.
	On the future financing package, the UK approached the negotiations with several objectives. First, we wanted an overall budget which demonstrated a responsible and prudent approach to spending, at a time when national budgets across Europe are under strain. Secondly, we wanted a commitment to a comprehensive reassessment of the structure of the EU budget.
	Europe faces an immense global competitive challenge. Quite apart from the established economies of America and Japan, the rise of China, India and the other Asian economies is creating a wholly new economic environment. It simply does not make sense, in this new world, for Europe to spend over 40 per cent. of its budget on the common agricultural policy, representing 5 per cent. of the EU population producing less than 2 per cent. of Europe's output. Indeed, we are spending seven times as much on agriculture as on research and development, science, technology, education and support for innovation combined. This is not a budget fit for purpose in the 21st century. Even at the end of the next financial period—by the beginning of 2014—we would be spending 40 per cent. of the budget on the CAP. Europe just cannot wait 10 years or more for the change that is necessary.
	It is in that context that the issue of the British rebate must be examined. The rebate arises because of the distortion of the budget. Over the 10 years to 2003, France's net contribution to the European Union was €18.8 billion; Britain's was €42.4 billion. Without the rebate, it would have been €78.7 billion. In the next financial period—2007–13—even with the rebate, Britain would be paying around €13 billion more. Without it, Britain would pay nearly two and a half times as much as France, and slightly more even in money terms than Germany. But it is also true that the rebate is merely a correction mechanism, designed to address an underlying imbalance in the budget. As the European Union has expanded and Britain has become more wealthy than countries such as France, it is right that it changes.
	Our position, therefore, was not to refuse any change to the rebate, to rule out a discussion, or to disown our responsibility to pay for the enlargement of Europe—an enlargement that we passionately support.
	On the contrary, I made it clear that we should deal with both anomalies; the rebate and the CAP. I proposed that we have a fundamental review of the EU budget, reporting in time for us to be able—midway through the next financial period—to alter fundamentally the structure of the budget, dealing both with the rebate and the CAP. In the meantime, of course, we would ensure that we paid our fair share of enlargement.
	The presidency proposal from Luxembourg fell way short of such a solution. The terms of the review were expressed in language so vague as to be meaningless. In addition, the words meant, effectively, endorsing the 2002 common agricultural policy package up to 2013. It has been said frequently in the past week that this 2002 agreement ruled out further CAP changes, and that therefore it was unfair of the UK to try to reopen it. But in October 2002, it was expressly stated that this agreement was without prejudice to the future financing arrangements and, at that time, the UK made it clear that on the basis of such a package there could be no change to the rebate.
	So the review offered was inadequate. What is more, the cost to the UK of the Luxembourg proposal would be over €25 billion, meaning over the next financial period that instead of parity with similar sized countries, we would have been back to, for example, a €23 billion deficit with France. That money, incidentally, would not have gone to poorest countries, but would have been redistributed among the wealthy ones.
	This is a deal I simply could not have recommended to the House. It was not the right deal for Britain. It was not the right deal for Europe. Four other countries rejected it, and several more made clear their dissatisfaction.
	I fully understand the concerns of the new European countries. They want an agreement. We will do our best to secure such an agreement and to make sure it is one that meets their needs. Britain championed enlargement; Britain will continue to do so. But let us not forget that, on any basis, around 80 per cent. of CAP funds and almost 50 per cent. of structural and cohesion funds will continue to go to the original 15 countries, not to the new accession countries.
	It is said that the failure to reach a deal has deepened Europe's crisis; that Europe's credibility demanded a deal. No. Europe's credibility demands the right deal—not the usual cobbled-together compromise in the early hours of the morning, but a deal that recognises the nature of the crisis. This crisis is not about the failure of Europe's leaders to reach agreement with each other. The crisis is about the failure of Europe's leaders to reach agreement with the people of Europe about the issues that concern them.
	People in Europe see the world changing around them, economically and socially, and want answers to the challenges they face. They worry about globalisation and organised crime and they do not, at present, see Europe giving a credible response. If we answer these concerns, Europe will strengthen. We need a strong Europe to bolster the strength of individual nations. It is those who believe in Europe most who should be the most ardent advocates of changing it. The European Budget should not be separate from that debate, but part of it. It is that debate that we will look forward to in our presidency.

Michael Howard: When the Prime Minister returns from a European Union Council, it is customary to start with those aspects of his statement with which we can agree, and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me advance sight of the statement.
	On this occasion, I am delighted to say there are more aspects than usual with which we can agree. As the Prime Minister said on a different occasion, "The kaleidoscope has been shaken." I sense—I hope that I am not mistaken—a real change in the way in which he and some of his Ministers are approaching reform of the EU. If that conversion is genuine, no one would be more delighted than me. Let me first congratulate the Prime Minister on protecting the rebate. He was right to insist that Britain's rebate should remain intact. We fully support him on that. But will he explain to the House what he said to the BBC on Friday: that if he gets the deal that he wants,
	"very bluntly Britain would pay more, not less, because of the way it would work out"?
	Those are his words, not mine. We agree that the CAP needs radical reform, but if the European Union does less, should not the British people also pay less?
	With the benefit of hindsight, does the Prime Minister now accept that he was wrong in October 2002 to sign up to the existing CAP arrangements, under which 40 per cent. of the EU budget still goes to an activity that employs just 5 per cent. of the people, as he said? But is there not something even more important than the reform of the CAP? The Prime Minister has talked about a European Union "fit for purpose". I agree. Should not Europe's leaders first decide what that purpose is, and only then how best to deliver it?
	The 2001 Laeken declaration, which set up the Convention that led to the constitution, was clear. Europe's citizens
	"want the European institutions to be less unwieldy and rigid . . . more efficient and open. Many also feel that the Union should"
	not involve itself in every detail
	"in matters by their nature better left to Member States".
	Is it not true that Laeken asked the right questions, but that the constitution was the wrong answer? As Labour's own representative on the Convention, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), said last week,
	"The Constitution was an overambitious attempt to consolidate an outdated political and economic vision of Europe. Our mandate was to bring Europe closer to its people and we ended up alienating them even more."
	Does the Prime Minister now accept that he has wasted the last two years trying to sell an outdated vision of the European Union, when he should have been making the case for a more flexible, liberal Europe of nation states?
	The no votes in France and Holland provide us with an historic opportunity to have a much wider debate about the future of Europe, but to do that we must put the European constitution behind us. Only last week, the Prime Minister was talking in this House of finding a way round the votes in France and Holland. Will he now emphatically renounce such language and reject any such attempt?
	For the last two weeks, the Prime Minister has refused to say whether he thinks that the constitution is dead, yet on Friday he signed up to a statement that made it clear that the no votes in France and Holland
	"do not call into question the validity of continuing with the ratification processes."
	If he thinks it still valid to continue with those processes, what does he intend to do about it? Does this mean that we will, after all, proceed with a referendum in this country? If not, what on earth does he mean by that phrase, which he agreed with the other European Union leaders?
	Last year, the Prime Minister told this House that opponents of the constitution wanted to
	"marginalise this country in the European Union"—[Official Report, 20 December 2004; Vol. 428, c. 1925.]—
	that we would end up having to accept associate membership. So has he sent France and Holland their application forms for associate membership? Does he now accept that he was wrong, and that the constitution would have taken Europe in completely the wrong direction? Why else did the Foreign Secretary say last week that we had reached a "turning point", and that Europe had been "trapped in the past"? Would it not be much better for the Prime Minister openly and honestly to accept that the constitution is dead, and that the European Union should abandon its attempts to smuggle in any further removal of power from the nation states, such as through the creation of a diplomatic service?
	The Prime Minister has rightly called for "fundamental change and reform" in the European Union. Will he confirm that during that process of "fundamental change and reform", Britain will continue to support EU enlargement—including sticking to the timetable for Romania and Bulgaria to join, and starting talks on Turkey's future accession? Does he agree that
	"the British view is that there should be a modern, flexible, reformed Europe; a Europe ready for the challenges of the 21st century; a Europe that is truly free, based on co-operation and not coercion; a Europe that transfers power back from Brussels to the nation state"?
	A year ago, when I put that case in those words to the Prime Minister, he responded by accusing me of "prejudice" and of
	"a transient populism that betrays the very national interest that it says it safeguards."—[Official Report, 21 June 2004; Vol. 422, c. 1085–86.]
	But he said on Friday night that he was not now prepared to accept that there is only one view of what Europe is. We welcome that, and we trust that whenever anyone presents a vision of the European Union that differs from his, he will no longer routinely accuse them of wanting to leave the EU.
	A recent report for the European Commission concluded that the EU faces the "exit ramp of history". In his new spirit of openness, conceding that there is more than one view of Europe's future, will the Prime Minister now accept that while some member states may want to integrate more closely, it should not mean that everyone has to? Does he agree that we will create a truly flexible EU only if Europe's leaders adopt a "live and let live" approach in future? Will he now accept that the status quo is a recipe for certain economic decline and that we need urgently to create a decentralised outward-looking deregulated European Union—a Europe that would be better placed to cope with the competitive challenges of globalisation and the emerging economies of the east? Will he also now accept that people of whatever country want to feel a sense of solidarity with and pride in the institutions that serve them, and that the institution that best provides such solidarity and sense of pride is the nation state?
	If the Prime Minister uses Britain's presidency to take a lead in Europe, arguing for a more flexible and more accountable EU with powers returned to the nation states, we will support him every inch of the way.

Tony Blair: First, let me thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his initial comments when he said that he agreed with much of the position that we have taken. Despite that, I still think it is the right position. However, the right hon. and learned Gentleman put his points in a perfectly reasonable manner, so I shall respond to them in kind.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke about my statement on Britain paying more for enlargement, but we must be very clear about this matter. As the EU enlarges and takes in countries that are much poorer than ours and as the budget is placed on a sensible basis, the wealthy countries will clearly have to pay more and the poorer countries less. I personally think that that is entirely justifiable as long as the EU budget is spent on sensible things. People will then understand it, but what they will not understand is Britain paying more in respect of a budget that is completely distorted by the injustices of the past. As to the CAP reform of 2002, others had the veto in those circumstances, but in this case, we had to give our agreement in order for a deal to be done.
	I do not disagree with some of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks about the difference between the Laeken declaration and the subsequent debate. Indeed, that point has often been made. In respect of the constitution, however, let me make one thing very clear to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Some of the reasons why people voted no, particularly in France, were not reasons that either he or I would support—among them was opposition to Turkish membership of the EU, for example. So we need to be careful, in discussing the no votes in France and Holland, that we do not assume that every person who voted no was somehow endorsing a particularly British view of Europe. It is not as simple as that.
	There is a real debate in Europe now, which is not limited to just two simple positions. Some are opposed to Europe on grounds that might recommend themselves to some of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's party but not to him—people who are against enlargement, against immigration and against the very concept of the EU—and then there are some who want a federalist superstate. However, most people in Europe recognise that the EU has an important role and want to see it strengthened, but also want Europe and its institutions focused on the issues that concern them now rather than on issues that rightly concerned people in Europe 50 years ago. The issues are not the same in the Europe of today. Enlargement provides a tremendous opportunity in that regard.
	Let me make one final point to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Our approach to Europe over the last couple of years has allowed us to be in a position whereby, despite the attacks from some quarters over the last few days, we went to the European summit with allies and we went out of it with allies—[Interruption.] Well, four countries joined Britain in voting against, but many more countries expressed their dissatisfaction. It is important to keep those alliances going forward. Many of the new countries in the enlarged Europe would have preferred a deal last Friday—let us be clear about that—and we have to explain to them why our opposition to the deal last Friday was not an opposition to enlargement or to Britain paying its fair share, but an attempt to put Europe on a more rational footing. In doing so, diplomacy as well as strength will be required: we will need both.

Charles Kennedy: Naturally, those of us in the fundamentally pro-European camp feel a degree of pessimism about the present state of affairs. However, as Britain takes on the presidency of Europe it is our responsibility, as the Prime Minister will undoubtedly agree, to try to build a new consensus and a new sense of optimism about the European project. Surely, the Council was right to call for a much broader debate among member states during this "period of reflection" over what happens to the constitutional treaty. Does the Prime Minister agree that being pro-European in no sense precludes being pro the reform of European institutions for the better, and that the two in fact go hand in hand?
	On Thursday, when the Prime Minister addresses the European Parliament, he will be required to set out his vision of how Europe will develop. Can he give us some more detail this afternoon about what that vision will be? In that regard, does he agree that, especially in the Balkans, the prospect of EU membership is a great driver for positive change as well as for regional stability? Will he ensure that under his presidency Britain maintains the momentum for that enlargement?
	The Prime Minister was undoubtedly correct over the past few days not to agree to a fudged deal over the budget. There is still time to agree a new package before 2007. But the Prime Minister did not begin to make the public case for reform, especially of the common agricultural policy itself, until it became clear that the United Kingdom rebate was under threat. In retrospect, surely that was a mistake. Why did he wait so long to make that coherent case for reform? What are the prospects for a deal on the budget under the British presidency, and will he bring forward specific proposals, during our presidency, for a reformed budget?
	Despite all the difficulties, however, the agreements made on international development at the summit, especially the increase in aid to Africa, were welcome. Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to confirm that the UK will meet the United Nations target on aid of 0.7 per cent. of gross domestic product before the EU deadline of 2015?

Tony Blair: On the latter point the answer is yes. We have set a target of 2013 on international development. The arrangement by EU Development Ministers—the agreement to double aid and increase it by $40 billion—is an indication of Europe working well together, and one should not lose sight of that.
	The important thing is to present the case for reform in Europe from a pro-European perspective. The Leader of the Opposition did not do a great deal of this when he spoke earlier—and that was the right thing for him to do—but if we were to make the case for change in Europe simply on a traditional Eurosceptic basis, it would carry no conviction at all. It is important to realise that it would not carry conviction with the new countries that are our allies on that. Towards the end of the evening, at one point there were offers by east European countries to pay even more into the budget if that would help to get a deal, but I made the point then—and I repeat it publicly—that there was no way that Britain was asking the east European countries to stump up more money. That was not the issue, and it is important that people in Europe understand that. The issue was the distribution of wealth among the wealthy countries and how it was divided up on a fair basis, with a proper budget.
	Let me just make this point to the right hon. Gentleman finally: it has again been said that we never made the case for the reform of the common agricultural policy until a couple of weeks ago. I do not have to hand all the times that I have made that case at the Dispatch Box, but I think Britain has been arguing the case for CAP reform for a very long time. We should not allow those people who are opposed to our position in Europe somehow to put away the idea and have it running throughout the European Union that we only raised the CAP a couple of weeks ago. We have never stopped raising the CAP, but if people wanted to make changes to the British rebate, it is obviously right that we deal with the underlying reasons for that. It is true that the amount spent on the CAP has come down significantly over the past 20 years. It was well over 65 per cent.; it is now just over 40 per cent., but that is still far too much for a policy that, in today's world, does not really correspond with the needs of the European economy.
	Let me just make this point as well: we do not and did not say either, as was being said by some other countries, that somehow, last Friday, we thought we could renegotiate the entire change in the CAP. That is not what we were asking for. What we are asking for is a fundamental reassessment that allows us to change this coming financial perspective. If we do not do that, it will be 2014 before we get any proper change in the European Union, and that is too long to wait.

Dennis Skinner: Is the Prime Minister aware that, notwithstanding the many reasons that he advanced for the no vote particularly in France and in Holland, there is a growing political vacuum in every one of the 25 nation states in the European Union? That is exemplified here as well as anywhere else. For 30 years, there has been a tendency, both in the Common Market and the European Union, to race ahead of its people, and for most of that time, they have been able to get away with it. My view is now that there are no political certainties any more in this growing political vacuum. The halcyon days are over, and if the Prime Minister wants to have six months of a presidency that will be marked, it had better not any longer be one of any grand gestures that race ahead of the people. It must be in line with what can be sold. If the Prime Minister does that, he may be able to find a way forward to reduce the burden of the CAP and all the rest, and it will need a lot of luck to go with him.

Tony Blair: That is certainly true, anyway.
	It is also true to say, though, that this change in Europe will not be achieved unless we recognise that, in my judgment, people support the concept of the European Union. What they do not support is its present reality, but that is a very different thing from saying that we should break the whole thing up.

William Cash: Against the background of this historic opportunity, does the Prime Minister recall the words of William Pitt, who said in 1801:
	"England has saved herself by her exertions and will, I trust, save Europe by her example."?
	In the light of what the Prime Minister has said, does he also recall that it is highly improbable that William Pitt would have signed the constitutional treaty, but that Churchill said that we should be "associated but not   absorbed"? Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to take up the message that Churchill issued and then say that he would agree to co-operate with those of us who have just set up the European reform forum to look at all the existing treaties and then find the way forward? This is an historic opportunity. Will the Prime Minister help us to co-operate in finding the way forward in the interests of this country?

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I ask hon. Members to co-operate with me by asking far briefer supplementary questions?

Tony Blair: I think that William Pitt went about things in quite a military way, as I seem to recall, and I do not think that we are quite at that point. The only difficulty with Winston Churchill on the subject of Europe is that quotes of his that support virtually most positions on Europe can be found. The basic point is that, yes, we can make a real difference over the next six months of our presidency, but I repeat that we will only do so if we are arguing from a mainstream position in Europe.

Denis MacShane: As I will be in Warsaw this weekend, may I welcome the Prime Minister's generous statements about helping eastern Europe and contrast them with the rather mean approach of the Leader of the Opposition when he said that we should pay even less to Europe to help poorer countries? Is the Prime Minister aware that 19 out of the 25 member states are now governed by sister parties of the Conservative party? The report in The Times today saying that leading Conservatives have set up their latest no campaign to renegotiate the treaties and pull us out of Europe is thus deeply alarming? While Britain should be extending its influence in Europe, the Conservative party wants us out of the European Union.

Tony Blair: That is why this is important. If we were to start talking about renegotiating the existing terms, it would be disastrous for our ability to gain any leverage in the debate at all. That is why it is sensible for us to work with other political parties and Governments in Europe from a pro-European position.

Alex Salmond: Does the Prime Minister accept that, right through his premiership, he has lectured us that the difference between him and his predecessors is that he will always put this country at the heart of Europe? Amid all the smoke, confusion, chaos, re-enactments of the battle of Waterloo and all that stuff, can he tell us exactly what now differentiates his position, in terms of attitude and style, from that of John Major 10 years ago?

Tony Blair: I can tell the hon. Gentleman exactly. In the latter part of the last Government, I am afraid that Britain was completely isolated in the European Union, but it is not isolated today. Britain has allies both on the nature of the reforms that we want to achieve and on the budget debate. If, as I assume, he is saying that we should have accepted that deal last Friday—

Alex Salmond: How many allies?

Tony Blair: Would the hon. Gentleman have accepted it or not?

Alex Salmond: The question is what your style is.

Tony Blair: What my style is? It is the budget we are debating, not fashion.

Keith Vaz: May I congratulate the Prime Minister on fighting so hard to preserve the British rebate? I realise that a period of reflection is important, but will he pledge to continue pushing forward the reform agenda? That relates to not only the CAP, but the Lisbon scorecard and the Tampere and Hague programmes, which, if implemented, will bring real benefits to millions of people throughout the European Union.

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If we were making real strides forward on economic reform, dealing with organised crime and drug and people trafficking, and issues to do with terrorism, and if we were ensuring that we had the right defence capabilities in Europe, the people of Europe would see us addressing their concerns and worries. He is absolutely right that that is the way to make the case.

Ian Taylor: I suppose that the events of the past few days have turned us all into Eurosceptics, but the question is how we now react. In Paris last week, it was clear that many French business people recognised that the French social model was not the basis for Europe. Indeed, as one commissioner said, it would endanger us to the point at which we could become a suburb of Shanghai. On a more general point, during the next six months, will the Prime Minister try to ensure that the European Union has the right allocation of resources so that we can continue to do our job of trying to stabilise Europe? One country that has not been mentioned that must be in our sights is Croatia. If it thought that there was no chance of coming closer to the European Union, there could be further instability in the Balkans.

Tony Blair: It is for precisely that reason that we need to push forward with enlargement. The point that the hon. Gentleman makes is right, but the Eurosceptic position, which is to say that Europe should be merely a free trade area, is certainly not the position of the Government. That is not my position and I do not believe that it is his, either. Our position is that there should be a social dimension to Europe. I believe that very strongly, but it must be a social dimension for today's world. If we had a proper social dimension in Europe today, we would be spending the European budget on things such as research and development, technology, skills, innovation and support for small businesses. If we did that, we would of course get enormous support from people in Europe.
	I do not accept at all, and I know the hon. Gentleman does not really either, that a Eurosceptic position of saying, "Let's move Europe to a free trade area," is one that we endorse—we do not. I know that our position over the past few days has been characterised in certain countries as arguing for that, but that is just nonsense. As I said at the Council when someone tried to say that our position was that we just wanted a market Europe, we do not simply want a Europe that is a free market. We want a strong social dimension and I want a strong foreign policy and defence dimension to Europe. I believe in those things for Europe, but we can get a better deal for Europe, never mind Britain, in today's world than the one that we have.

Gavin Strang: In supporting my right hon. Friend, I put it to him that we should not lose sight of the achievements of the European Union. Does he agree that the accession of the eastern European states is a major advance and that making a success of enlargement should be a key priority in the years ahead?

Tony Blair: Yes, my right hon. Friend is right. What is more, it is important to realise that the new accession countries are not in favour of a Europe that is simply a free trade area. If we put our argument in the wrong way—if we conduct the debate in the wrong way—we will lose their support when we need it.

Ian Paisley: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the controversy raging over the Common Market and the common agricultural policy is a smokescreen to cover up the real issue, which is the rejection of the European constitution? Will he assure the House and the people of this United Kingdom that there will be no renegotiation of the rebate because a pistol from Europe has been put to his head or our head and that he will only go forward for that which is best for Britain, because what is best for Britain will be best for Europe? Will he assure the farming community that what they have been promised will come to them and that, if anybody has to be de-CAPed, it is not British farmers, but French ones?

Tony Blair: I sort of agree with some of that. What is important is that the deal on the common agricultural policy in particular has got to be fairer and right for the future. Incidentally, it is also a fact that no one is saying that countries cannot take a decision to support their farming industry. The question is what should Europe be doing about the amount of money that it puts into the CAP.

Ronnie Campbell: The Prime Minister has done a pretty good job in Europe over the past few days, but how on earth will Europe persuade the French farmers to cut half their subsidy, knowing their militancy?

Tony Blair: We have to decide what is in the interests of everybody in Europe. As I said, it is not that countries cannot decide to support their industries and communities. That is fine. The question is what should Europe be doing. The trouble is that the CAP in its current form is a big distortion of expenditure.

Peter Tapsell: Surely the Prime Minister is being too modest. I welcome his belated application to join the Eurosceptic club, to which most of our fellow countrymen are already subscribers. I invite him not to leave the European Union, however discredited it may become, but instead to carry through a great swathe of changes in our legislative relationships with Europe so that Britain can continue its historic role as a friendly, commercial, self-governing democracy.

Tony Blair: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman and I really agree on the European Union. I still believe that it is essential for the British national interest. As someone once said,
	"the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union is vital to our national interests, to our position in the world, to our nation's economy and . . . to the peace of Europe."—[Official Report, 20 June 1996; Vol. 279, c. 1095.]

Julian Lewis: Not my words, Mr. Speaker, but those of . . .

Tony Blair: That is right, they are not my words, but in this case they are not Margaret Thatcher's words either, but the words of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis). That may be the new dispensation by which he is to be governed.

Stuart Bell: Building on the questions asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) and my hon. Friends the Members for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), and the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition, would it not be appropriate to have a debate in our country? We welcome the Prime Minister addressing the European Parliament on Thursday, but can we have a debate that tells our people about the prosperity, jobs, trade and the human rights platform that come from the European Union? Would not that be an appropriate way to fill the political vacuum referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover?

Tony Blair: I am sure that, as we should be, our country will be a major player in any debate about the future of Europe.

Richard Shepherd: Central to opposition to the European Union has always been the question of democratic and accountable governance. Now that the people have come to realise that the network of treaties, institutional arrangements and European courts has denied them the opportunity to form the laws that they want, will the Prime Minister honour the pledge that he gave on the Floor of the House of Commons to have a referendum, notwithstanding what other countries did, so that we can finally drive a stake through the heart of those anti-democratic propositions?

Tony Blair: I think that we have already gone through the position on the referendum. On his first point, the hon. Gentleman and some of his colleagues should be careful before endorsing and embracing entirely all the elements of the no votes in France and Holland. As I keep saying, many of those who voted no did so for reasons that have nothing to do with the position of British Euroscepticism.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Prime Minister put my mind at rest? [Interruption.] Well, perhaps he can help me. I watched with interest the press conferences on Friday night. Toward the end of his contribution, the Prime Minister set out his vision of what Europe is about and talked about a competitive global economy. To my regret, he said nothing about environmental protection in Europe, protection of living standards and a welfare state, or the living standards of people in other parts of the world that have been damaged by the global market economy. Will he give us some idea of a vision of a more social Europe, rather than a free market Europe?

Tony Blair: To put my hon. Friend's mind at rest might be too vaulting an ambition, but I can tell him that the social Europe in which I believe is, for example, a Europe in which we make it easier for people to transfer their skills across the EU; a Europe in which we invest in active welfare programmes, as we in this country are doing in the new deal for the unemployed; a Europe that spends more of its budget on science, research and development, so that in industries such as biotechnology, where we will face fierce competition from countries such as India and China, we can ensure that the industry grown here in the EU is strong. There is a range of social policies on which we can co-operate. However, what I do not think will bring a more competitive economy, either in this country or in Europe is, for example, supporting the provisions of the working time directive that were recently debated. That is a different vision of the European social model, not a vision that abandons that social model.

David Curry: Is there not a danger of enormous collateral damage resulting from the row? Is not one of the areas most at risk the World Trade Organisation talks on a new trade round, which could collapse because of disputes about agriculture—an issue on which Europe has to make a very large move if the talks are to progress? What will the Prime Minister do to make sure that those incredibly important talks do not become a victim of Europe's internal rows?

Tony Blair: The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that there are all sorts of risks and dangers in the debate. We have to make sure that enlargement countries understand our position, for example, and that people understand our position on the rebate, which is not that we are not prepared to discuss it or any changes to it, but that such discussions must take place in the context of a different approach by the EU. He is also right about the trade dangers. However, I think that we have reached the point where, unless we have the debate about what type of EU we want and conduct it from a pro-European perspective—the only perspective that will carry any weight in the rest of Europe—we will not get the right decisions on any of the issues, including the WTO. It is important that, at the end of the year, we have a strong European position on reform at the WTO. We will have to use every lever available to ensure that that happens, but we have passed the point where we can pretend that the debate is not needed.

Mark Hendrick: I commend my right hon. Friend's position on retaining the British rebate until the CAP is reformed further. In a year when Africa is top of the political agenda, the CAP in its present form is an obscenity. Will he comment on the front-page article in today's Financial Times, which says that the British presidency of the European Union will work to get a budget agreement before the end of the year?

Tony Blair: It would be unrealistic to think that we are going to get agreement on an entire reform package over the next few months. What we can get—and this is all that we have sought—is a process of reform that allows us in the coming financial perspective to reorder budget priorities. We can say that, until we get such agreement, we are not discussing or debating the rebate. That is the right way to lever in change, and our ambition to secure that process of reform is achievable.

Adrian Sanders: For as long as we exercise our veto on the removal of our veto, France will veto CAP reform. That is difficult enough with 15 member states, but with 25, there must be a new modus operandi or constitution. How does the Prime Minister see a way forward towards that?

Tony Blair: That is why the constitution, in our judgment, represents a sensible set of rules for the future, but it has been rejected in two countries, and we must take account of that. On the other hand, I do not think that we will ever reach a decision that the European Council will not take such decisions on the basis of common agreement. If we had been in a position where we had agreed this deal last Friday, I really do not think that I could have recommended it to people. It was wrong in terms of the reform package, it was wrong in terms of finances for this country, and it was wrong in terms of the refusal to link those two things together. I do not think that we had the option of agreeing a deal, and it is unfortunate that our proposals, which were reasonable, were rejected.

Gisela Stuart: The Prime Minister rightly said that this is a case of reaching agreement not just among the politicians of Europe but among the people of Europe. Would that process not be helped by accepting the votes in the Netherlands and France and saying that the constitution was no longer on the table? That would allow him to focus on the important message: making Europe's economies fit for the 21st century and delivering jobs and economic prosperity. Then people will grow closer to the concept of the European Union.

Tony Blair: I understand entirely what my hon. Friend is saying. Most people are now concentrating on the debate in the European Union. It is difficult when 10 countries have ratified the constitution, as they are naturally sensitive about being in a position where the rest of the Europe says that the constitution is over and done with. As I keep saying, one could have a theological argument about the state of the European constitution, but the fact is that the French and Dutch voted no. Those votes are there—unless they are got round, that is it.

Peter Lilley: In light of the Prime Minister's call for a fundamental review of the European Union, its purpose and fitness for that purpose, can he explain why he continues adamantly to rule out the possibility of any return ofpowers and competences from the European institutions to the member states?

Tony Blair: Because if we started a debate now about renegotiating our own treaty obligations to the rest of Europe, at a stroke we would lose any possibility of influencing the argument in the rest of Europe. I am sorry, but that is simply true. I will not bother reading out quotations from Conservatives when they were in government, as there is not any point in doing so. [Interruption.] Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman never made such statements, but I can assure him, without embarrassing too much the people who were in government at the time, that even the speech by Mrs. Thatcher at Bruges, if it were given today by a Conservative aspiring to the party leadership, would be considered rampantly pro-European. That is the truth. If we want to conduct the debate in a such a way as to suggest that the real point is how we get rid of the existing powers of the European Union, we would lose it before we started it, and that would not be sensible.

Martin Linton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most important aspect of our commitment to Africa is not the pressure, albeit that that is important, to increase aid, but our target of ending agricultural export subsidies by 2010? How can we end export subsidies by 2010 without fundamental reform of the common agricultural policy?

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend is right, and that is exactly what we should do. As I said, it is perfectly reasonable to say that, as part of the refinancing of the European Union, the budget, everything in it, the CAP and the rebate, should all be looked at.

James Paice: The Prime Minister knows that there is little support in this country for using our taxpayers' money to support French farmers or to support subsidised exports of foodstuffs to the developing world, but he is aware that British farmers are already grappling with the biggest change in agriculture policy since 1947. Is he aware that his remarks in the past few days have caused considerable uncertainty and confusion at home among our farmers? In the light of his comments a few minutes ago, is he telling the House that if the CAP were to result in further reductions to farmers' payments above and beyond those already in train, the British Government would make them up to the level already planned?

Tony Blair: Any budget decisions must be taken at a later time, but I understand the concerns of British farmers, as well as of European farmers. I am not standing here in order to have a go at French farmers and the support. What I am saying is that, unless we put in place a reform process that allows us over time to adjust the budget of the European Union, in the end we will find that we have an unsustainable position. That is the problem. If we do not have such a reform process in place, it will be 2014 before we can agree changes to the CAP. I am not advocating—this is important—changes tomorrow in the payments made to UK or other farmers. I am saying that, by the time we get to midway through the next financial perspective, we should have a clear plan as to how we are to make changes to the CAP. At the same time, we can work on other ways of supporting farmers in a more rational way.

Joan Walley: May I press the Prime Minister on the issues of globalisation and the environment raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn)? Now that we must have a complete rethink, how can my right hon. Friend use his presidency to make sure that we put environmental issues and sustainable development at the heart of the budget that will have to be reformed?

Tony Blair: What my hon. Friend says is right, in the sense that the environment is one area where Europe must act together. There is no point in Europe taking measures to deal with the challenge of global warming unless other countries are part of that. That is why we are trying to use the G8 to restart the process of binding in other countries—America, and obviously China and India as well. This is an area in which Europe can develop measures such as the emissions trading system, and where we can take common action to protect our environment. People talk about what is wrong with Europe, but as a result of the changes made in the regulation of the water industry, we have enormously improved the quality of our rivers, our drinking water and so on within the European Union. There is much that we can do. My hon. Friend is right—that is one area where it is important that Europe acts together.

Andrew MacKay: How long does the Prime Minister define a pause to be?

Tony Blair: As long as it takes.

Hugh Bayley: The need for CAP reform will clearly bounce back at the G8, because development and trade justice for Africa will be impossible without a substantial reduction in subsidy. At €10 billion, le chèque franc"ais is considerably greater than le chèque britannique. Did the Prime Minister ask President Chirac why French farmers need almost twice as much aid from the common agricultural policy as France gives to poor people in Africa, Asia and Latin America?

Tony Blair: I did not quite approach the matter in that way. It is important to say, not just for the audience in the Chamber, but for the audience outside as well, that it is unreasonable to expect the whole system to change overnight. It is reasonable to expect that we have a process in place to change it. That is what we are asking for. In certain parts of the rest of the EU, it has been said that we were demanding an immediate, overnight change of all the priorities and trying to renegotiate the whole CAP on Friday night. That would be absurd and no one ever suggested it. What we are saying, however, is that we cannot wait until 2014 before we confront those issues.

John Maples: I understand why the Prime Minister has closely linked the possibility of the reform of the rebate to the reform of the CAP, but it looks like that linkage might be rather difficult to achieve. Issues such as the elimination of external tariffs, the genuine completion of the single market, the services directive and the completion of the Lisbon agenda, which he promoted, are tremendously important to us and would be hugely beneficial to the British economy. Would it not be worth negotiating the rebate in the context of some or all of those issues?

Tony Blair: I agree that those questions are important, but the financing deal must be fair to this country as well as to everyone else in Europe. We currently face a blockage on all fronts, which is a situation that must change. However, the hon. Gentleman is right that some other issues are every bit as important for the British economy, in the longer term at least.

Dari Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many of the British electorate believe that EU funding is not only unfair and chaotic, but, frankly, corrupt? Will he use the presidency to ensure that the funding system is open, accountable and fair? Does he believe that the great European project could be fatally damaged if we do not achieve such a system?

Tony Blair: I understand the points raised by my hon. Friend, and I will do my best.

Elfyn Llwyd: Does the Prime Minister appreciate that one consequence of failing to set the budget is that west Wales and the valleys will lose up to £3 billion in objective 1 funding over the next seven years? If that is the case, will he give the House an unequivocal assurance that the Department of Trade and Industry will provide equal funding? Finally—in asking this question, I am hoping against hope—has he received any representations from the First Minister in Cardiff?

Tony Blair: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's point is right. It is important to emphasise that, for the last financial perspective, it was agreed at an equivalent time to March 2006. In other words, the fact that we have not reached an agreement now, in June 2005, does not mean that we cannot reach an agreement before the financial perspective comes into effect. The hon. Gentleman's description of the impact of not achieving a financial perspective is inaccurate. If we do not reach a proper financial perspective, the accession countries will have the real problem, which is why I am keen to resolve the situation.

Mike Gapes: I welcome the Prime Minister's statement that this country will continue to champion enlargement, but will he assure me that the accession talks with Turkey will open at the end of the year and that those talks will not be blocked by opponents from other countries? Will he also reassure me that the EU will continue to be a beacon for democracy and good governance in the countries of the former Yugoslavia, otherwise we face a resurgence of nationalism in this continent?

Tony Blair: It is important that we keep to our obligations in respect of Turkey, which we intend to take forward in the proper way in our presidency. My hon. Friend is right to say that, if we were to block off further enlargement, it would have a damaging effect on our relations right across the world.

John Redwood: Will the UK Government table a paper on the budget, in a spirit helpful to our partners, pointing out that, according to the auditors, the sums lost through fraud and waste are more than twice the size of the British rebate? Would it not be productive to obtain agreement from those partners to tackle fraud and waste, in which case we would have some money to sort out whether other countries should get rebates or whether we should back certain worthy programmes?

Tony Blair: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that helpful advice, which I shall pause to reflect on.

Chris Bryant: The Prime Minister is surely right to say that there should be a period of reflection, but does he worry that too long a period of introspection in the European Union could lead to greater political and economic sclerosis? We must take swift action on many issues, because China and India are unlikely to hang around waiting for us to reform our economies, and security in the Maghreb must be significantly enhanced. How does the Prime Minister propose to get back on track over the next six months?

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend is right that we need to make progress quickly, particularly on the economic reform agenda, and one way to do so is to raise the issues that he mentioned. As I shall say to theEuropean Parliament on Thursday, economic competition cannot be considered introspectively, and we must assess the fact that major countries outside the EU are offering new and different competition.

David Heathcoat-Amory: I congratulate the Prime Minister on treading the familiar path for British Prime Ministers from uncritical acceptance to a realistic Euroscepticism. May I invite him to take one small further step by admitting publicly that 25 free countries cannot be squeezed into a single centralised European structure? Will he instead be creative and bold by taking a lead in Europe and publishing alternative proposals for a treaty relationship—he can call it "new Europe" if he likes—that celebrates diversity and would not only be more democratic but stop the ridiculous rows at European summits that are caused by the endless rush towards centralisation?

Tony Blair: I suppose that realistic Euroscepticism is better than unrealistic Euroscepticism. However, the problem with the programme that the right hon. Gentleman outlines is that we would not gain support for it in the rest of Europe—it would alienate people in the rest of Europe. Furthermore, if we were to retreat to such a position and make Europe the type of area that he is thinking of, that would not be to the benefit of this country or of Europe. I caution him against thinking that the no votes in France and Holland are a vote for the type of vision that he outlines—I really do not think that they are.

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Violent Crime Reduction Bill

[Relevant documents: The Fifth Report from the Home Affairs Committee, Session 2004–05, HC80, on Anti-Social Behaviour, and the Government's reply thereto, Cm 6588.]
	Order for Second Reading read.

Charles Clarke: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	I rise to invite the House to give a Second Reading to the Violent Crime Reduction Bill. As colleagues on both sides of the House will know, the introduction of the Bill was a manifesto commitment at the general election. It reflected deep concerns that existed in many parts of the country and were in turn reflected in the election debate. I believe that the steps that we are setting out today will make a contribution towards addressing those concerns in a serious and positive way.
	It will be clear to everyone that violent crime takes a wide variety of forms, ranging from common assault, often fuelled by alcohol, through to more serious crimes such as sexual assault and crimes where guns, knives and other offensive weapons are used, which can lead in extreme cases to homicide. Although the British crime survey data show considerable falls in violent crime since 1997—by about 26 per cent.—it remains the case that in many parts of the country there is high, and genuine, concern about the level of violent crime, and a strong desire, reflected, I am sure, by Members on both sides of the House, to take the most appropriate steps to deal with it.
	The proposals in the Bill are part of our ongoing work to tackle violent crime in all forms and to make the country much safer for its law-abiding citizens. The overall objection of the legislation is to provide the police and local communities with the powers that they need in two specific areas: first, alcohol-related violence; and secondly, the use of weapons, particularly guns and knives.
	I want to deal first with alcohol-related violence and disorder. It is obvious, I think, that alcohol misuse is closely linked with a wide range of crime, disorder and antisocial behaviour. It is a highly visible part of the night-time economy and, moreover, a phenomenon no longer confined to weekends. The British crime survey shows that 33 per cent. of stranger and 25 per cent. of acquaintance alcohol-related assaults happen on weekday evenings and nights. The effects are widely apparent and have an impact on large numbers of people in a variety of ways.

Richard Ottaway: I welcome the proposals in the Bill, but cannot the Home Secretary see the inconsistency between these measures to tackle alcohol-related crime and the expansion of the consumption of alcohol through 24-hour drinking?

Charles Clarke: There is no inconsistency at all, for reasons that I am about to explain.
	It is obviously true that responsibility for ending the binge-drinking culture must ultimately lie with the individual. That is the point in relation to the hon. Gentleman's intervention. I am sure that he has many friends who, late at night after a meal or going to the cinema, might welcome the chance to have a drink afterwards with their friends in a way that is absolutely no threat to the security of the community in which they live. That is true throughout the country and it is a reasonable part of civilised life. In this country and throughout Europe, we have seen that that can happen in a proper way. The point is to distinguish between such perfectly civilised activity and the binge drinking and horizontal and vertical drinking culture that is such a serious problem. [Interruption.] I meant vertical drinking, which leads to horizontal drinking. That was the confusion in my language on which hon. Members picked up.

Frank Field: The Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 gives local authorities the powers to try to prevent the cumulative impact of a concentration of places where people might drink standing up or lying down. I hope that all local authorities will be serious about trying to apply those powers.
	In the Wirral, there is another concern. On weekday and weekend evenings, part of the centre of the Birkenhead resembles the wild west on speed. We are worried that such centres will spread to other parts of the Wirral where there are currently no licences. If the local authority and local Members can devise a suitable amendment, will my right hon. Friend consider favourably granting local authorities the powers to refuse the first licence if they fear that the relevant area will go the same way as the centre of Birkenhead?

Charles Clarke: We will consider such aspects. The Licensing Act 2003 and the Bill allow local authorities in the Wirral and elsewhere, working with the police, to define matters of greatest concern. As I shall explain shortly, I hope that the Bill gives the powers that are needed. However, the short answer is yes; if necessary, we shall consider amendments to deal with such an eventuality.
	Responsibility must ultimately lie with the individual. However, the industry and licensed premises also have a role to play—that is a critical point. Legislation, therefore, has a firm part to play. I shall set out the five provisions on alcohol-related violence that the Bill includes.

Joan Humble: My right hon. Friend mentioned the responsibility of the licensees and the licensed premises. Does he know about the scheme in Blackpool, whereby the Licensees Forum works constructively with the local authority and the police, who then police licensed premises in the Blackpool area? Will he consider the expansion elsewhere of such schemes, for example the excellent night safe scheme, and of good practice, so that the licensed premises, the police and the local authorities genuinely work together to ensure the safety of those who want to drink in the evenings?

Charles Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend. Blackpool is one of the parts of the country where all sectors of the community, including the people who run businesses and know that they will be successful only in a climate that is secure for the wider community, work together. People have come together in a scheme to which I pay tribute. In my constituency in Norwich, a similar relationship operates in the nightclub areas. That has been positive. I believe that the provisions will encourage people to consider the example of Blackpool and elsewhere and make progress in their communities.
	The Bill contains five specific provisions to deal with alcohol. The first is drinking banning orders. The measure provides for a new civil order, called a drinking banning order, which can be made against an individual who is engaged in criminal or disorderly conduct while under the influence of alcohol, and when such an order is necessary to protect other people from further harm. The order could impose any provision to protect others from criminal disorderly conduct while under the influence of alcohol. The length of the order will be between a minimum of two months and a maximum of two years. The order will be much more targeted than antisocial behaviour orders. Although ASBOs may be relevant in some circumstances, drinking banning orders will be more appropriate when the basic problem is binge drinking and alcohol-fuelled behaviour, pure and simple, and when there is a need for more flexible time limits on a ban.

Hugh Bayley: As I understand it, under current legislation, magistrates can impose a drinking ban on somebody convicted of an offence on licensed premises. However, it is also important to be able to impose a ban on those who are convicted of offences such as disorderly behaviour outside licensed premises. Will the Bill allow that to happen?

Charles Clarke: My hon. Friend is entirely correct, and the short answer is yes, it will. The drinking banning order is necessary precisely for the reason that he implies. It is important to deal with disorder within premises, but it is also important to have powers to deal with disorder outside premises in areas in which a large number of premises are grouped together.

Mark Oaten: Will the Home Secretary explain how the new offence will differ from the offence involving drunk and disorderly behaviour?

Charles Clarke: Drunk and disorderly behaviour is specifically an offence relating to someone's drinking. The new offence will allow a drinking banning order to be put in place when the problem is not simply one of drunkenness but of other antisocial and disreputable behaviour in the locality. I regret to say that such instances are only too common.

David Davis: The Home Secretary will remember that, when we were discussing the so-called 24-hour drinking proposals, we suggested that they should be held off until the effectiveness of these alcohol disorder zones and drinking banning orders had been proven. Will he assess their effectiveness regularly during the early part of their implementation?

Charles Clarke: Very much so. We shall look very carefully at their effectiveness not only before the legislation comes into force but throughout their existence. We shall also ensure that there is every opportunity for licensees to behave in the way described by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble), and to get their act in order. That would be the best solution for many of the places that we are talking about.
	The second measure in the Bill involves the direction to individuals to leave a locality. The Bill also provides for new powers for the police to issue a direction to leave a locality to an individual aged at least 16 who is in a public place, and to prohibit his or her return for up to 48 hours. A direction could be given if the presence of the individual in the locality was likely to cause or contribute to alcohol-related crime or disorder, or to its continuation or repetition. A direction could be given to a person involved in any offence or disorder where alcohol was involved, and the provision is not limited to those offences relating specifically to drunk and disorderly behaviour.

David Howarth: I am trying to understand the place of local authorities in the strategy that is being put forward. There is an oddity in the Bill that I cannot explain, but I hope that the Home Secretary will have an explanation for it. In relation to the drinking banning orders, clause 11 gives a role to county councils but not to district councils where a county council exists. However, it is the other way round in clause 17, which deals with alcohol disorder zones. I fail to understand the purpose of that distinction.

Charles Clarke: The orders are different, and the key relationships are those between the local authority on the one side and the police on the other. That runs right through this legislation. However, I am quite happy for any inconsistency between county and district councils in regard to particular orders to be explored in Committee, if the issue would be better served by such a debate.

John Pugh: As I understand it, there would be no criminal accusation made in regard to someone being asked to leave a locality. However, loss of reputation could result from any publicity involved. If an individual were incorrectly identified by the police—and such errors will eventually be made—what recourse would he have, other than to go through the police complaints procedure?

Charles Clarke: I presume that that is not a request by the Liberal Democrats for the Identity Cards Bill to be brought in even more rapidly.

David Davis: He would be on his own.

Charles Clarke: Of course, a person would have recourse to the police complaints procedure, and to getting his or her case taken up in that way. However, I want to make a serious response about proportionality. In relation to the hypothetical situation in which a whole series of offences could be committed in a particular area, the sanctions that we are proposing are not enormous. Examples include an individual being asked to leave a locality for up to 48 hours, or the imposition of a drinking banning order lasting between two months and a maximum of two years. I acknowledge that there will be consequences, however, and if an individual has been wrongly accused, he will be able to have his case taken up. However, there is a difference in proportion between an issue of that kind and some of the other scales of penalty that can be applied, and that needs to be taken fully into account.
	The third measure covered here relates to alcohol disorder zones. As I have said, as well as individuals, the industry and licensed premises have a major role in helping to end the binge-drinking culture, for the simple reason that nearly half all violent crime is alcohol-related. One in five violent incidents take place around pubs or clubs, and 35 per cent. of hospital accident and emergency admissions are alcohol-related. That rises to 70 per cent. between midnight and 5 am. Parts of too many of our towns and cities have become unpleasant places to visit on some evenings, and that can be exacerbated by a mixture of poor operating practice in certain sections of the trade and public spaces having to cope with large numbers of people heading for the town centres.
	I welcome the steps that some in the trade have already taken to raise operating standards. Initiatives such as the one mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood, the best bar none accreditation scheme first launched in Manchester, and the constructive work of the trade associations to develop clear standards for responsible retail of alcohol—for instance, the recently published document on drinks promotions—are steps in the right direction, and we want to encourage them. There is more to be done, however. The Licensing Act 2003 gives the police and local authorities more powers to come down hard on irresponsible operators, and we need to make sure that the powers to review licences are used to their maximum potential.
	I nevertheless think it incumbent on us all to face the fact mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley). Much alcohol-related disorder in town and city centres at night takes place in the streets around pubs and clubs rather than inside them. That requires a change of approach.

Stephen Crabb: Why has the number of convictions for being drunk and disorderly fallen from about 40,000 in 1984 to about 25,000 20 years later? Are the existing laws not being enforced properly?

Charles Clarke: I think that there is an issue of enforcement generally. The Bill's key message is that powers need to be enforced more effectively, but we must also ensure that the police have the powers that they need to deal with offences. Part of the problem, as I have said, is behaviour in certain localities in towns and cities.

David Jones: rose—

Elfyn Llwyd: rose—

Charles Clarke: I will give way when I have made a little more progress.
	It is difficult to blame a particular pub, club or off-licence for disorder in public places, but that does not mean that premises can deny all responsibility. We want the industry to take collective responsibility for the problem. The Bill proposes a new power to designate alcohol disorder zones where there is a significant problem with alcohol-related disorder. Local authorities will be able to impose charges on pubs, clubs and off-licences within the boundaries of the zone if they fail to implement an action plan designed to tackle the problem.
	Let me stress that the front-page story in the Daily Express suggesting that certain kinds of institution will be excluded from that power is entirely wrong. Clause 12(7) explains why. It is necessary for us to deal in this way with all the generators of alcohol abuse in a particular locality. I should make it clear, however, that alcohol disorder zones will be a measure of last resort. They would be used if licensed premises in the area were unwilling to take steps to deal with the problems voluntarily. The focus is on ensuring that action is taken to change the situation, and we believe that the threat of charges would be a powerful incentive for premises to participate voluntarily. The action plan will be tailored to individual local problems and solutions, and we will set up a practitioner-level working group to consider what might be a typical example. That is why the Local Government Association and the Association of Chief Police Officers have welcomed our proposals.

Elfyn Llwyd: Why do so few convictions occur each year for the selling of alcohol on licensed premises to people who are inebriated? The law is quite clear, and easily enforceable.

Charles Clarke: I think it is because the partnerships between local authorities, police and licensees are not anywhere near as strong as they need to be in all parts of the country to achieve the policing that the hon. Gentleman describes. One of the major arguments for the Bill is that it would create that sense of corporate responsibility. I believe that this is the way forward.

David Jones: Does the Home Secretary agree that much of the disorder on our streets is caused not only by those who are intoxicated with alcohol but by those who are intoxicated with a cocktail of drugs and alcohol, and that nothing in the Bill does anything to address the drugs element that is causing disorder on our streets? Does he agree that the downgrading of cannabis was a retrograde step and should be amended?

Charles Clarke: The drugs issues were addressed in the Drugs Bill, which became an Act at the end of the last Parliament. Obviously, the relationship that the hon. Gentleman describes exists, but we have decided, rightly, to focus in this legislation on alcohol-related aspects of disorder.

John Bercow: Further to the inquiry of my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones), may I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that he should not lose sight of the importance of the drugs point? As I understand it, two thirds of the Government's flagship drug rehabilitation places have been terminated without the individual participant in them completing his or her term, yet the Government envisage an expansion in the number of places. Will he confirm, if he is intending to go ahead with that expansion, that he has in mind the length of time that each placement should last and how he intends to ensure that participants complete their term?

Charles Clarke: First, let me say that this Government have given more attention to the issue of drug abuse than any previous Government by a very long way. We have tackled the issue both through legislation and by making the necessary resources available. However, I do not believe that we have solved the problem by a long way. There is a great deal to do, as has been described, but I will not debate the drugs issue in the context of this legislation, which is to do with alcohol and guns and knives.

John Denham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the problem of alcohol-related disorder appears to affect all cities, many suburban areas and a large number of smaller towns? Does he therefore expect most right hon. and hon. Members to have alcohol disorder zones declared in their constituencies?

Charles Clarke: I hope that the answer to that question is no, not because I disagree with my right hon. Friend's analysis—there is an issue in most of our constituencies to some degree or other, and certainly in a great city such as Southampton and others—but because the aim of our approach is to change the culture significantly. I hope that the kind of approach that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood described in her intervention is the kind of approach that will be taken up and down the country, reinforced by the Licensing Act 2003, giving the local authority, together with the police, responsibility for dealing with the matter. If what my right hon. Friend described happened throughout the country, I would regard that as a failure. It would be a success if we had a relatively small number of alcohol disorder zones and changed behaviour in towns, cities and suburbs throughout the country in the way everyone wants. I am certain that that is the right direction to go in.

David Lepper: May I first put on the record a non-registrable interest, in that my wife chairs the licensing committee of Brighton and Hove city council?

Kevan Jones: Fine job she does too.

David Lepper: I thank my hon. Friend.
	I welcome the proposals that the Home Secretary has put before us and has just outlined, although I suspect that the close working between the local authority, the police and the licensed trade in Brighton and Hove may mean that we will have no alcohol disorder zones. However, once these measures are on the statute book, will he liaise closely with the Lord Chancellor? I have in mind the fact that, in relation to antisocial behaviour orders—I think that there is a parallel—there is concern still that magistrates are perhaps not as aware as they might be of the full range of their powers. I suspect that, when this Bill becomes law, they may not be fully aware of the range of their powers when these orders are breached.

Charles Clarke: I am grateful to respond to such a well informed contribution. I certainly will liaise with the Lord Chancellor. As with ASBOs, ensuring that everyone understands exactly what the legislation does and how it is to be enforced is critical to its success. As I implied in my answers to interventions earlier, the single most important ambition we have in relation to this part of the Bill is to change behaviour. I agree that, in Blackpool, as in Brighton and Hove, there is a focus on solving the problem effectively. I hope that the Bill will provide more strength to the elbow of those seeking to do that.

Dari Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend accept that a change in attitude and behaviour is taking place in Stockton, where there is a voluntary agreement between the local authority and Cleveland police? In two months, crimes of violence were reduced by more than 20 per cent. One can see that the change in behaviour is encouraging people to respect and enjoy the night time economy.

Charles Clarke: I accept what my hon. Friend says. I was fortunate enough to visit her in Stockton a couple of months ago for a seminar on domestic violence, which brings to mind another important point. A central reason for achieving the change in behaviour to which she refers is to reduce domestic violence, which is so often alcohol-fuelled. That point was made by participants at the seminar and I am happy to give credit on that specific example.

Lynne Featherstone: Does the Home Secretary agree that there may be a lack of incentive for good landlords if they are treated the same as the bad landlords in a disorder zone?

Charles Clarke: First, there is a clear difference between the way in which the law treats good and bad landlords, in the sense that the bad landlords will have a series of sanctions that apply against them, and rightly so, while the good landlord will not. Secondly, it is important to stimulate every landlord, good or bad, to recognise that the welfare of an area depends on all landlords working together to drive out the bad and encourage the good. I believe that the Bill will help with that.

Tobias Ellwood: Will the Home Secretary clarify the role of the armed forces in relation to the police, as we are getting mixed messages on exactly what they are supposed to do? Would it not set a bad precedent if we saw the armed forces patrolling with the police on our streets?

Charles Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is referring to a story in the newspapers whose source I am still trying to discover. I do not recognise the descriptions in the newspapers; not an uncommon experience for me. However, the military police—rightly, in certain circumstances—are active in certain communities in terms of policing individuals in the military. I know the story to which he refers but I cannot give him any help with it.

David Davis: Would the Home Secretary let us know the outcome of his investigation into this matter? The Sunday Telegraph reported that there had been a pilot study in Royston in Hertfordshire. If so, I should have thought that it would be available to his Department almost immediately.

Charles Clarke: In a spirit of co-operation, as always, I will be happy to write to the right hon. Gentleman with the results of my investigations when they take place. However, those investigations cannot be into the ways of news reporters, even on such august journals as The Sunday Telegraph, with which the right hon. Gentleman is keen to curry favour at the moment. But I certainly will write to him.
	The fourth measure relating to alcohol disorder zones, but also to knives and guns, is the fulfilment of the commitment that will require those pubs and clubs that are at risk to search for knives and guns on entry to a club. This is a key step in our work to change the culture of carrying offensive weapons and will serve as a deterrent. The licence review provisions in the Bill supplement existing arrangements in the Licensing Act to expedite reviews of premises, and the licensing authority can act quickly to deal with the situation. We have not restricted the provision just to searching for weapons and glass. We want to provide an effective power that can be used flexibly, but it is important that licensees have more powers to deal with the situation and that the police have more powers to ensure that they do.

Jeremy Wright: The Home Secretary will agree that the measures in the Bill, worthy as they may be, will only work if they can be enforced. Will he look again at the crippling burden of paperwork on our police officers so that they can get on with enforcing these measures?

Charles Clarke: Yes.
	The fifth measure in the Bill is the crime of persistently selling alcohol to children. The House has grappled for some years and on many different occasions with the unlawful sale of alcohol to children. Since 1988, progressive changes to the licensing law have attempted to create more effective powers to deter such irresponsible retailing. However, the number of children under 16 who consume alcohol has not changed significantly since 1988. About a quarter drink alcohol, but in one important sense at least, the position is deteriorating: those young people who do drink are drinking more. In the past decade, the average number of units of alcohol consumed per week by such children has almost doubled—from 5.3 units in 1990 to 9.8 units in 2001. That should concern us all.
	The responsible parts of the alcohol industry, which helped us to establish enforcement campaigns such as last summer's alcohol misuse enforcement campaign, are as disturbed as we are by those results. Alcohol is obviously a contributory factor in raising levels of youth crime. This Bill will create a more robust deterrent to unlawful sales by threatening the profits of irresponsible businesses, rather than just the individuals making the sales. So the Bill will create a new offence of persistently selling alcohol to children if, on three or more different occasions in a period of up to three consecutive months, alcohol is unlawfully sold on the same premises to a person aged under 18. The penalty for the new offence on summary conviction will be a fine not exceeding £10,000. Where the offender is the licence holder, the premises' licence could be suspended for up to three months.
	But the Bill goes further than that. On detecting an alleged offence, it will be open to the police and trading standards officers to serve a closure notice requiring the licence holder to cease sales of alcohol on a specified date for 48 hours, or face trial in the courts.

Elfyn Llwyd: The right hon. Gentleman is being very generous in giving way. I greatly welcome what he has just said, but will he reconsider the question of allowing the Portman Group voluntarily to regulate the advertising of alcopops?

Charles Clarke: I greatly respect the work of the Portman Group, which has worked very hard over the years—it is true that it is funded by the industry—to reach the position where we have more responsible drinking generally. On regulating the sales of particular drinks, however, it is better if possible to proceed by way of voluntary, rather than statutory, arrangements. There are some who do not agree with that approach and perhaps the hon. Gentleman is among them, but I think it better in principle to establish a set of voluntary agreements. In fact, the Minister for Policing, Security and Community Safety, my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Hazel Blears), through her own advocacy, secured some progress on this issue and I hope that we can move further in that direction. We should take that as our starting point, rather than going further and trying statutorily to define the types of drink that can and cannot be sold.

Helen Jones: In addition to the Bill's provisions on dealing with those who persistently sell alcohol to children, will my right hon. Friend undertake to look in Committee at the penalties for those who purchase alcohol for minors? In my constituency, most of our problems are caused by kids standing outside off-licences and getting someone to go in and buy alcohol for them.

Charles Clarke: My hon. Friend's point is powerful and true—I have seen precisely that happen in some parts of the country. I can confirm that in Committee we will consider whether there is a better way to target penalties in that regard.
	The second major issue that the Bill addresses is the abuse of weapons, particularly guns and knives. Again, there are five specific measures to which I want to draw attention, the first of which concerns using someone to mind a weapon. It is already an offence illegally to possess an unlawful firearm, and to carry knives and other weapons in public without reasonable excuse. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 introduced a mandatory minimum sentence of five years for illegal possession of an unlawful firearm, but the truth is that offenders can skirt the law by using other people—their friends, family or siblings—to carry their weapons or to hide them for them, in a manner not dissimilar to that which my hon. Friend referred to in respect of the purchase of alcohol. As well as such a person's being put at risk of harm from the weapon, they are also at risk of prosecution, while the offender escapes scot-free. In cases where children are used, they may be at risk of the longer-term harm of involvement in gun and knife crime, as a result of such early association with weapons.
	It is clear that we need to close this loophole, so the Bill will make it an offence to use a person to hide or to carry a knife or firearm. In addition, if a young person under the age of 18 has been used, it must be regarded as an aggravating factor, which will affect the length of the sentence handed down. The penalties for this offence will be in line with those already existing for possession and send a very clear message that we will not tolerate the possession of such weapons in our society and that passing them on to another person, particularly if that person is a child, will not leave someone in the clear.
	The second measure in this part of the Bill deals with air weapons—a matter of great concern across the House.

James Clappison: If, as the Home Secretary says, it is right—I am sure that it is—that using a young person to mind one of these weapons is an aggravating factor, is there not a case for applying an even more severe sentence for such an offence than would apply for mere possession?

Charles Clarke: There is a case for that and I am prepared to consider amendments to that effect in Committee. It is important to get this matter right and the Committee will look into it in detail. Overall, it is right for the offences to be introduced in the way that I said.
	Airgun safety and incidents of misuse are matters of real public concern and I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will have had such concerns put to them by their constituents. In 2003–04, air weapons were used in 13,756 crimes—a fall of 0.5 per cent. from the previous year, but a 59 per cent. increase from 1998–99. Most offences were criminal damage, but even so there were 2,238 slight injuries and 157 serious injuries. We would all have read with horror the details of the tragic deaths of two-year-old Andrew Morton in Glasgow and 12-year-old Alex Cole in Doncaster. They underline the concerns expressed, and arouse—universally in the House, I am sure—a feeling of deep sympathy for the families and friends.

Alistair Carmichael: The Home Secretary refers to the tragic case of Andrew Morton, which has excited considerable press comment and, indeed, political comment in Scotland. Has he discussed the provisions of clause 26 with the First Minister or the Minister for Justice in Scotland and, if so, have they pronounced themselves content?

Charles Clarke: I have discussed that specific clause and the issue with both the First Minister and the Minister for Justice. We are still working to see whether any further amendment could usefully be made to deal with circumstances in Scotland. Both parties held a press conference during the election campaign and subsequently there were ministerial discussions and my officials and those of the Scottish Executive are discussing all the time how best to make progress in these areas. As to whether they are content, that is a difficult word to use in this context and I shall explain why.
	The call was made for a licensing regime for all airguns. I did not go down that path because there were substantial representations from the police—including the police in Scotland—to the effect that expressly licensing airguns in the same way as firearms would lead to a bureaucratic and ineffective system that would not deliver the result that people wanted. There are still those who believe that we should nevertheless go down that route and I have no doubt that it will still be debated as the Bill proceeds and perhaps also in the Scottish Parliament. It remains important to reflect carefully on it.

Mark Lazarowicz: rose—

Michael Weir: rose—

Charles Clarke: I shall give way to both hon. Members in a few moments, but I want first to set out what we intend to do about airguns.
	There is already a wide range of controls on air weapons, but in view of the high number of offences, we need to tighten up on certain aspects. Much of the misuse is attributed to young people, which is why we will be raising from 17 to 18 the minimum age for possessing or acquiring air weapons. We also propose to make it an offence for any person to fire an air weapon beyond the boundary of premises. We view that as particularly important, as weapons discharged from premises generally are a real danger around and about, so the new offence is right. It is already an offence for a person under 17 and adults who misuse air weapons can be prosecuted for other offences, but that measure has not always been effective. I am mindful of a case where two men fired shots from their balcony and hit a woman. Although the men admitted firing the guns, the police could not prove intent or who fired the crucial shot. The new offence will close that loophole.

Mark Lazarowicz: Although the measures that my right hon. Friend has outlined are welcome, will he think again about a licensing scheme or indeed a ban on airguns? Although some police officers are against such a scheme, many senior figures in the police are in favour of a licensing scheme. Even if there were discussions to introduce such a scheme or a ban in Scotland, which I would welcome, the issue applies throughout the UK. I do not want people to be able to buy guns in Berwick-upon-Tweed or Carlisle and use them in Edinburgh where there may be a different regime.

Charles Clarke: My hon. Friend is right about the need for a similar regime throughout the UK. I can assure him and other Members that I will listen carefully to debate on these matters and to the points of argument that are put. All my instincts—I know this is true of my hon. Friend, too—would be against those who used airguns in such ways and we need effective regulation. We have carefully considered the best way to do that, but I shall certainly listen carefully to debates in the House, in Committee and elsewhere about how best to address the problem in a way that works. I am sure that my hon. Friend and I share the view that we should act only in a way that is actually effective and that is the key test that we have to establish.

Michael Weir: Given the points made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz), the Home Secretary can see that there is cross-party consensus in Scotland on the matter. There may indeed be a desire to go further than the provisions in the Bill. The Home Secretary said that he prefers a UK-wide system, but if it were demonstrated that there was cross-party consensus in Scotland to go further, would he look into transferring to the Scottish Parliament the power to consider setting up a stronger system in Scotland?

Charles Clarke: The view taken at the time of the original devolution legislation was that the distribution of guns was rightly a UK issue, for precisely the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz)—that people could buy guns on one side of the border and take them to the other. There should be UK resolution of that issue, so I do not have in mind the prospect of devolving that aspect of legislation to the Scottish Parliament. With respect, I know that the focus of the hon. Gentleman's party is on where the devolution line falls—or does not fall—but he would be on stronger ground if he talked to his colleagues in other parties about the best means for dealing with air weapons across the UK.
	In relation to ammunition, we shall be unrelenting in our efforts to ensure that police and local communities are successful in tackling gun crime. As I have already indicated, there have been successes, but although it is an offence to possess full rounds of ammunition without a certificate the current law does not apply to component parts. That has given rise to police concern that some criminals try to escape prosecution by holding ammunition in its component form and we intend to make that illegal.

Robert Flello: May I return briefly to an earlier point? Recently, an air weapon was fired into a school playground in my constituency and I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend would consider making that an aggravated offence.

Charles Clarke: I certainly shall consider that proposal, which is a fair point to raise. Indeed, making it illegal to discharge an airgun from any premise would bear directly on the incident that my hon. Friend described. The offence of aggravation for discharging a weapon—for example, into a school playground—could be properly considered in Committee.
	The third measure on weapons relates to imitation firearms.

Si�n James: Can my right hon. Friend give any assurance to my constituent, Mr. Peter Dyson, who has written to me expressing concern that plans to limit the use of replica guns will affect him and others who enjoy the sport of airsofting in a responsible and law-abiding manner?

Charles Clarke: I, too, have received correspondence on that matter and if my hon. Friend will allow me, I shall respond on airsoft and one or two of the other lobbies in a second, when I have outlined our overall approach.
	The overall approach set out in the Bill on imitation firearms acknowledges the fact that in 200304 such weapons were used in 2,146 crimes, an increase of 18 per cent., on top of a 46 per cent. increase in the previous year. That accounts for 21 per cent.more than a fifthof firearms crime if we exclude offences committed with air weapons. Some 75 per cent. of offences involving imitation weapons constituted violence against the person. That is wholly unacceptable, and the whole House would agree that it is necessary for us to legislate on those issues.
	It is true that a range of existing controls governs the misuse of imitation weapons. Those controls will remain in place and continue to be enforced, but they have been proved insufficient to halt the upward trend, which seems to be fuelled in part by the success of measures to tackle the misuse of real firearms, such as the five-year minimum sentence for possessing a prohibited firearm.
	Of course, defining an imitation weapon has always been difficult. At present, the law refers to anything that has the appearance of a firearm whether or not it is capable of discharging any shot, bullet or other missile. That definition works in practice by virtue of the fact that it is subject to a qualifier relating either to the weapon's design: whether it is readily convertible; or to its misuse: whether it is possessed to cause fear of unlawful violence. However, it is a wide-ranging definition, and we want to bear down most of all on those weapons that closely resemble real firearms, which are being increasingly used to threaten, intimidate or rob.
	If most of us saw one of the imitation weapons that I am talking about lying on a table alongside a real gun, we would not be able to tell the difference between them without picking them up. We will therefore make it an offence to manufacture, import or sell a realistic imitation. Under the definition that we use, an imitation will be caught by the new offence if it is indistinguishable from a certain make or model, or is sufficiently similar to a generic type of firearm.
	We know only too well about the problems for the police when armed units are called out in response to reports of people seen with guns. Often, the person is a youngster, brandishing an imitation that they are misusing deliberately, recklessly or with little appreciation of the consequences. A restriction on the age at which any imitation can be sold or purchased will help to reduce the incidence of misuse, and we propose a minimum age of 18.
	We have accepted that a total ban on the possession of imitation firearms is impractical for a variety of reasons, which is why we propose to double the penalty for possessing an imitation firearm in a public place without reasonable excuse. We are saying, loud and clear, that messing around in public with anything that resembles a gun is simply not acceptable, and unless people heed that message, they could go to prison for up to 12 months.
	The point about airsoft made by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mrs. James) also applies to paintballing, re-enactment societies and use in television and film, where a legitimate case may be made for a certain useI emphasise the word mayso we set out in clause 32 the power for the Secretary of State to regulate exemptions in such circumstances. I will listen to such representations, but those representations would have to make a very powerful case for a certain exemption. That is the criteria that I would use.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: On this part of the Bill, will the Home Secretary accept my appreciation in respect of two matters? First, I appreciate the clarity with which he has dealt with the perceived problem of definitions, so that this important and long-overdue measure can become law. Secondly, I appreciate the courtesy and the care with which he has received representations from many organisations that are interested in this matter, not least the Gun Control Network, in which, as he knows, I have a tangential interest. He will also know what a great pleasure it is for me to be able to give wholehearted support to an important Home Office Bill, although he will appreciate that that cannot go on very much longer.

Charles Clarke: I very much appreciate my hon. and learned Friend's support. The phrase tangential support could take me into other entertaining language, but I will not go further down that path.

Nick Palmer: As my right hon. Friend knows, I very much welcome the direction of the Bill, and I have previously introduced a private Member's Bill on airguns. On the specific issue of replica weapons, there is a slight difference of emphasis between clauses 30 and 31. Clause 30 stresses the need to avoid replicas that can be confused with genuine weapons, whereas clause 31 considers the possibility of allowing such replicas in circumstances that the Home Secretary may specify. He mentions an exemption for airsoft as one possibility. May I suggest that, when a specific club seeks such an exemption, it would be possible to allow some kind of registration procedure, so that people can prove that they are members of a re-enactment society, club or whatever, as a condition for owning such weapons?

Charles Clarke: My hon. Friend is quite right to say that that is the kind of way to deal with the matter. As I said earlier, when there is a genuine interestI have more understanding of the interest of the re-enactment societies than that of some other bodieswe should simply look at a regime that will work. My hon. Friend's proposal might well be right, but I do not want to allow a situation in which any such activities can somehow be used as a diversionary path to try to avoid the legislation, which is why I am being cautious in my response.

Diane Abbott: I appreciate the worries of colleagues who are concerned about societies involved in games and re-enactments, but the majority of so-called Yardie shootings in inner London have long been perpetrated by people using reactivated imitation weapons. I have long argued in the House for a ban on imitation weapons. In the context of falling crime, gun crime has cast a peculiar shadow over communities such as Hackney, Harlesden and other parts of the inner city, so I would like to join those who have welcomed the Bill and especially its clear action on imitations.

Charles Clarke: I appreciate my hon. Friend's support and pay tribute to the work that she has done. I remember from when I lived in Hackney the work that she did in her constituency to try to deal with such serious issues, some of which involved a gun shop.

John Denham: My right hon. Friend has produced a clear definition of an imitation firearm. However, I am worried about firearms that are not clear imitations, yet could be taken to be firearms in bad light or during the practical operational work of the police. Is my right hon. Friend happy that he might be introducing a distinction into law meaning that a police officer who fired a shot in such circumstances at someone carrying a toy or wooden weapon could be judged by the courts to have acted badly because the weapon was not a real imitation firearm? He needs to think about the possible knock-on consequences of the definition that he is bringing into law.

Charles Clarke: I accept what my right hon. Friend says, but this is a difficult area of definition. One of the arguments put forward for a long time against going down precisely the path in the Bill has been that the definitions are so difficult that we should not do so. After careful consideration, I have reached the view with my colleagues that despite the difficulty that he fairly identifies, the ill that we are trying to deal withthe abuse of replica guns and the danger that they can causemeans that we must legislate in such a way. I am willing to look carefully at specific points, whether that is in Committee or through other representations, but I am not prepared to accept that we should not legislate to deal with replica and imitation firearms simply because there is a difficulty with definitions. I do not deny that there is a problem, but we should not allow that to stop us from legislating.

Nia Griffith: Will the Home Secretary tell us what measures will be put in place to prevent the sale of replica guns and plastic ammunition from catalogues sent out by companies based both here and abroad?

Charles Clarke: We are still carefully examining that point and the related matter of sales on the internet. The delegation mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) showed me shocking examples of what can be purchased on the internet, so we are still actively considering how to deal with that specific concern.

Stephen McCabe: I join other hon. Members in applauding the Home Secretary for taking action on imitation weapons. I note that the Home Office consultation paper on the matter ruled out the possibility of taking such action, so I welcome the change of heart. However, the same consultation paper referred to concerns about internet sales and implied that action would be taken. I urge my right hon. Friend to go one step further, otherwise, the measures on imitation weapons will have virtually no effect because people will buy them off the net and bypass conventional sales.

Charles Clarke: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments and pay tribute to his work on this subject. However, I do not accept the phrase virtually no effect. Even if nothing is done on internet sales, the measures that we propose will have a substantial effect. I accept the thrust of his remarks, though, and we need to look carefully at how we can regulate sales and carry the policy through. As I said, we are doing just that.

Lynne Featherstone: What work has been done on how the number of people carrying guns will drop with the increased sentence of just six months? Why six months? What will that do exactly?

Charles Clarke: People who carry a gun can be given up to 12 months. There is a lot of speculation about what difference the sentence will make and how it will operate. We will keep the situation under review, but the measures will make a significant difference.

Christopher Fraser: If someone uses a gun or firearm legitimately for their recreation and they need a replacement part, such as a barrel or ammunition, how do they overcome the accusation that they are manufacturing a replica?

Charles Clarke: By pointing to the truth of it. If someone legally holds a firearm in a licensed way and if he has participated in the process that is being developed, he will be able to establish that that new part is needed. Again, if there is an ambiguity, it is reasonable to discuss in Committee how we can eliminate it. I shall be flexible and consider particular proposals.
	The fourth element on weapons is the sale of knives. Comprehensive legislation is in place to deal with knives and other offensive weapons, but public concern remains, so we intend to raise the age limit of who can be sold a knife from 16 to 18 to limit the distribution of knives among young people. It is already an offence to carry a knife or offensive weapon in a public place without good reason or lawful authority, with the exception of a folding pocket knife with a blade of less than 3 in, and we have taken other steps to ban the manufacture, sale and importation of certain knives. However, the additional measures will further tighten controls and send the message that we will not tolerate the carrying of knives and other weapons in our streets.
	The fifth and final measure on weapons is the introduction of a power to enable head teachers to search without consent any pupil they suspect of carrying a knife or other offensive weapon. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills supports me in that, and although it is the case that there are not many knives in schools, tremendous tragedies have arisen when knives have been in schools, and we want to strengthen the arm of the head teacher to deal with that.
	There are a number of additional miscellaneous powers. In summary, they are an amendment to the football banning order provisions, a new forfeiture clause in relation to the trafficking of people, an amendment of section 82 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, and a measure to strengthen our ability to tackle mobile phone theft.
	The measures set out in the Bill will go a significant distance to changing the culture of violent crime and, therefore, to reducing violent crime. I commend it to the House.

David Davis: The Home Secretary offers the House yet another crime Bill. Violent crime is a massive problem, but this is a relatively minor and unambitious attempt to deal with it. It is the 11th anniversary later this week of the Prime Minister uttering the immortal words:
	Being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime is not an empty slogan.
	How hollow those words must seem to the millions of people who have suffered violent crime and who, unlike the Prime Minister, live with the consequences of his broken promises.
	We all remember the examples of the Prime Minister's grandiose promises, such as marching yobs to cash points. What happened to that brilliant piece of inspiration? It never happened. Setting up night courts, where victims are apparently too drunk to be dealt with, has also been abandoned. Then, there was a promise to halve street crime in just five months. If only. Do the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary think that the British people do not remember those promises?
	Since the Labour Government took office, violent crime has risen sharply. Britain now suffers more than 1 million violent crimes each year. Offences of violence against the person have increased by 90 per cent. and robberies by 50 per cent.

Charles Clarke: If he were fortunate enough to become Home Secretary, would the right hon. Gentleman wind up the British crime survey or start accepting its conclusions that violent crime has decreased by 26 per cent. since 1997?

David Davis: The answer is neither. I would extend the British crime survey to take on board all the things it now misses, such as murder, sex crimes, crimes against under-16s and crimes against retail and other commercial premises. If the Home Secretary made the British crime survey work, we would pay attention to it. Some parts of it are useful, but the right hon. Gentleman should use statistics a little more as useful data, and rather less as excuses, if he will forgive me for saying so.
	As I was saying, offences of violence against the person have increased by 90 per cent. on recorded crime and robberies by 50 per cent. on recorded crime. That is what the police are told about, that is what they can do something about, and that is what we should pay attention to. When the Leader of the Opposition was Home Secretary, gun crime fell; since then, under the Labour Government, it has doubled. In addition, the use of cocaine has trebled and persistent youth offending has increased, as has the number of sex crimes.
	Just as serious is the fact that, at the same time, detection rates have been falling. Despite all the targets and all the talk of improving police efficiency, there are 900,000 more unsolved crimes each year than there were in 1998.

Stephen Hesford: Will the right hon. Gentleman seek to divide the House on the Bill tonight?

David Davis: I will not give the hon. Gentleman advance whipping advice. He should talk to his own Whips Office if he wants the night off. However, I shall explain what our stance on the Bill will be, both today and in Committee.
	In the past everyone assumed that violent offences were a priority for the police and very high clear-up rates gave grounds for thinking so. Under the Conservative Government, almost 80 per cent. of crimes of violence against the person were solved. Now, that figure has fallen to only 50 per cent. What kind of deterrent is that to criminals? What sort of protection does it afford the public? What sort of reassurance does it give the victims of crime? It is nothing short of a scandal and, although the Bill contains some worthwhile proposals, it will not resolve that problem.
	We consider some of the measures the Home Secretary proposes useful. They might help the courts or assist the police and we want to do both. We shall not oppose for the sake of opposition: we shall consider what is on offer and try to improve it. Judging by the Home Secretary's remarks, there is scope for discussion and improvement. However, taken as a whole, we consider the Bill to be a woefully inadequate response to the crisis of violence and disorder that the public now face. Seen in the wider context of the Government's measures, the Bill is a qualified admission of defeat. So far, the Government have introduced more than 40 Bills, 200 Home Office initiatives and 350 new regulations, all aimed at quelling the tide of crime. But that tide has kept coming, and Ministers are now scrambling for the lifeboats.
	Crime statistics have sometimestoday not leastbeen prayed in aid of the Government's case that they are tackling crime effectively, but although the statistics are in some respects ambiguous, they offer no way out. In international terms, the picture is dire. According to the international crime victimisation survey, Britain has the second-highest levels of criminality in the industrialised world. Moreover, despite frequentand convenientchanges to the way in which the figures are collected and counted, the picture of violent crime in this country is not ambiguous at all. It is bad, it is worse than it was, and it is getting worse still.
	Recorded violent crime has in fact risen in four of the last five quarters. The Government's first response in such situations is always to deny the facts. Last December, the Prime Minister admitted in one of his disarming bursts of temporary frankness that violent crime has been rising. A few months later, he was keen to point out that, according to the British crime survey, violent crime had not gone up but down. He omitted to mention, however, that the BCS figures are systemically flawed. They are not comprehensive, and they omit murder, sexual offences and crimes against people under 16 altogether. In the case of violent crime, they are contradicted by the recorded crime figures and by everybody's everyday experience.
	The Government's second response, once the first has collapsed, is instinctively to reach for the nearest headline-grabbing initiative, of which there are many in the Bill. Nothing comes more easily to hand than the antisocial behaviour order. Not many people have had kind words to say on Europe today, so to make up for that and to prove my inclusive credentials[Interruption.] Yes, it will cause surprise. I commend to the House the words of Seor Gil-Robles, Commissioner for Human Rights at the Council of Europe. He observed of antisocial behaviour orders:
	One cannot but wonder, indeed, whether their purpose is not more to reassure the public that something is being done . . . than the actual prevention of anti-social behaviour itself.
	I could not have put it better myself.
	There are, however, some parts of the Bill that we can support. Subject to the important caveat of making sure that they are both fair and effective, we welcome the greater powers to be given to magistrates, as that will allow them to ban individuals from drinking for set periods of time. There is no doubt that local authorities urgently need powers to control local drinking hotspots, and enabling courts to focus on serial drunks who populate such places may be of assistance. It is important to clarify the way in which we enforce such proposals, but we can discuss that in Committee. The proposal is not much, but it is something. We also agree with other proposals. The Bill will create the offence of using an accomplice to conceal weapons, as the Home Secretary mentioned at the end of his speech. There is evidence that a number of cases are not prosecuted successfully for lack of a weapon, so the provision may help to bring such criminals to book.
	Finally, we support the extension of the age limit for the purchase of air rifles, which is a sensible tidying-up of existing provisions. I look forward to reviewing the effect of the proposal on airsoft activities in Committee. So far, so modestly good. We also agree with the Government that there is a problem with replica firearms. Some of them can easily be converted into lethal weapons, but they are already illegal. They can be used to terrorise the public, they make life difficult for the police, and they can even lead to tragedy. We remain to be convinced, however, of the need for the measures in the Bill. It is already a criminal offence to carry a replica gun in a public place without a reasonable excuse, and the burden of proof lies with the person who carries the replica. Furthermore, the courts already sentence individuals who rob banks and shops with replica guns as severely as individuals who commit such crimes with real guns. There are no obvious gains to be made from further legislation in that respect. There also remains the age-old problem of definition that plagues measures to ban almost any dual-use object.
	Such problems are not necessarily prohibitive, but they should give legislators pause for thought. The right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), who chairs the Home Affairs Committee, made a good point about such problems, and said that replicas could be viewed in two ways if they provoke a police response. The Bill offers a complex definition of replicas that can also be toys. It will certainly be good for barristers but, equally, I am not at all sure that it will be bad for criminals. The most important requirement, however, is action to prevent the import and sale of replicas that can   be converted into guns that firethe so-called Brococks. More effective controls need to be exercised by police and customs at our borders, particularly on internet salesa matter on which we have called for action several times in the past 18 months and which was raised by at least two Labour Members.
	The Bill also deals with weapons of a different sortknives. There has been a sharp increase in knife killing since 1998, and the number of offences has gone up by 17 per cent. That clearly has to be tackled, but how? There is a basic point to be made here. One does not prevent crime by banning the weapons with which it is committed, though one may be able to limit the incidence and its effects. Rather, one prevents crime by detecting, punishing and, in the case of violent crime, incarcerating those responsible. On none of these has the Government been at all effective.
	There is no reason to believe in the effectiveness of what is now proposed, which is to increase the age at which knives can legally be bought. There is no shortage of knives in circulation, and with or without the Bill, there is unlikely to be a shortage in the future. A MORI poll carried out last year revealed that a quarter of children aged between 12 and 16 admit to carrying a knife. Almost one in five of them say that they have attacked someone, intending to do injury. Let us hope that that is an exaggeration, but even if the figures are inflated, they still reveal the inadequacy of what is being proposed.
	If we want to stop knife crime, we must focus on those who use the knives, not necessarily on those who originally buy them. To that extent, I agree with the Prime Minister, who in his former capacity as shadow Home SecretaryI quoted himargued for toughness on the causes of crime. First, we must know what we mean if we seriously mean what we say on the subject. No one is condemned by their genes, background or social class to a lifetime of crime. Plenty of people come from disadvantaged backgrounds and overcome those disadvantages, often heroically so. It is patronising and flatly wrong to suggest the opposite.
	We can and should isolate two sets of causes of crime, upon which the Government exert an influence. The first relates to the kind of behaviour that leads to criminality. At the very top of the list is the abuse of alcohol and drugs. Half of violent crime is known to be drink-related, and there has been a 10 per cent. increase in the number of people who think that drunken and rowdy behaviour is a problem in their neighbourhood. That is a disturbing trend. Some limited action through the so-called alcohol disorder zones is proposed, but if it is effective at all, its effects will be limited and slow in coming. Meanwhile, the Government's answer is to allow more drinking in more places more of the time. That is no answer. It is the reverse of a solution. More drink will mean more violent crime.
	As for drugs, hard drug use is rising sharply. The number of people frequently using class A drugs is up by more than 60 per cent. since 1998. Cocaine use among young people has doubled. The price of drugs has fallen, so cocaine is cheaper than cappuccino and ecstasy can be bought for less than a pound. That is because, although demand is increasing, the supply is soaring ahead still fasterobviously, one of the lessons of free market economics that the Government have not yet mastered. Drugs are coming through our porous borders because the controls are too weak and because they are undermanned.

Henry Bellingham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a large percentage of drug users picked up the habit while in prison? Does he agree that the Government have done far too little to combat the abuse of drugs in our prisons?

David Davis: My hon. Friend is right. That is one of the reasonsonly one of the reasonswhy one of our policies is to divert a large number of youngsters who are subject only to drug offences into residential rehabilitation, rather than putting them in prison and creating a life of crime, and to have similar programmes inside prison and continuing after prison, to ensure that people who get into criminality get off that track.
	The Government prefer to rely on drug treatment and testing orders, yet more than two thirds of those orders end without being completed in full. The reconviction rate for those failing to complete was over 90 per cent. That is a terrible indictment of the system. Rising drug use is not inevitable. I have seen for myself in the United States how the President's drug strategy is working. It has reduced teenage drug use by 17 per cent. in just three years. That was done by working through schools, by preventionnot just attempted cureand by giving young people the will and the inner strength to say no when drugs are offered, as they often are. Less drug use will mean less violent crime, and this is a violent crime reduction Bill.
	That brings me to the second way in which a Government can tackle the causes of crime. Most young people who slip into criminality and who then stayed mired in it do so because it seemed the easiest option at the time. Of course, they should decide to change, but they do not do soit is too hard and too much effort. To alter that situation, they must know that the benefits that they expect from offending will be reduced and that the penalties will be magnified by a rigorous criminal justice system.
	Such young people also need something elsehope. A Government can generate a culture of hope that truly favours individual and voluntary initiative, that genuinely writes off no one and that determinedly empowers people rather than trapping them at the bottom of the pile. However, they can easily do the opposite of that by creating, allowing or perpetuating a culture of utter and bitter hopelessness, which is the case in too much of Britain today.
	British society is blocked: the country is less socially mobile than it was 30 years ago and one third of households now rely on the state for more than half of their income. Living in deprivation is not easy or pleasant, and people get the worst of everything, including crime. The figures confirm that point: if someone is unemployed, they are twice as likely to be a victim of crime; and if someone lives in the most deprived areas, they are three times as likely to be a victim of crime. The figures are even worse for violent crime.

Kevan Jones: I am very interested in the right hon. Gentleman's speech, which is obviously a leadership bid to the new, cuddly, friendly Conservative party, and I actually agree with many of his remarks. However, does he agree that former mining villages in my constituency have lost hope because of the previous Conservative Government?

David Davis: That question barely justifies a response, but I shall give it one. The hon. Gentleman's opening remark was thoroughly unworthy, and he went on to mention the problems in mining villages, which nobody doubts. However, nobody doubts that problems also exist in other parts of the country where manufacturing is collapsinghe should visit MG Rover. We stand for a society in which everybody has an opportunity, and I am not just talking about stacking the shelves in Tesco.
	The worst thing is when people find that they cannot break out, however hard they try. The Government's social policies have deprived poorer people of the two things that they need most in the worldpersonal dignity and the hope of improvement. Their criminal justice policies have left the most vulnerable in our society exposed to the rule of the thug and the bully. And their planning and housing policies are repeating the failures that condemned an earlier generation to growing up in crime-stricken communities. Those are the causes of crime.
	It is plain common sense that where a child grows up is a formative influence on how he or she comes to see the world. If people live in an environment strewn with burnt-out cars or on an estate with broken and boarded-up windows, or if people walk through stair wells littered with syringes and filth, they start out with a jaundiced view of life. The peer pressures are enormous, particularly for children from broken homes, and those pressures are nearly always bad in such conditions. In one sense, one can never remove the causes of crime, because those causes are locked into the deepest recesses of human nature, but one can let in the light, give people a chance and offer opportunity.
	I agree with the Prime Minister's aspiration, but I deplore his lack of achievement. This Bill is a minor response to a massive problem. It is called the Violent Crime Reduction Bill, but in truth it will not reduce violent crime, although it may limit its increase in some cases. The Government's criminal justice strategy, of which the Bill is a modest and undistinguished part, fails to engage with the roots of the problem. The Bill fails to attack the causes of crime, while again pursuing a plethora of headline-grabbing initiatives that attack the symptoms of crime. It is time to prevent drunk and disorderly behaviour, not merely to manage it; it is time to stop the plague of drugs that afflicts our youngsters, not merely to cope with the consequences; and it is time, at last, to be tough on the causes of crime, rather than, as in this Bill, merely treating the symptoms.

John Denham: Over the past few years, the Government have achieved significant success in reducing crime overall, but there is no doubt that the perception that violent crime has risen, or is rising, mars their overall achievement and has an impact on their confidence. It is therefore not surprising, but welcome, that they have introduced the Bill.
	I use the word perception in relation to violent crime because it is often difficult to get a grip on exactly what is happening. When one considers, for example, that well over half of all recorded violent crime did not involve any injury to the victim, one can see that the statistics are hard to understand. That happens to be the case, although it is not quite as daft as it sounds. There has certainly been an increase in the recording of non-injury crimes that would never have been recorded by the police 10 years ago; that is why the recording system has been changed. The statistics also tell us that there has been an increase in certain types of crime that are at the more violent end of the spectrumgun crime or knife crimeor are in more public places and involve a greater risk of crime from strangers or acquaintances.
	The sense that the number of such crimes is rising generates the current public concern. Some of us are not necessarily happy with that. Those of us who worked for years on domestic violence have never entirely bought the idea that violence from someone one knows is in some way better or more acceptable than from someone one does not know. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the fear of violence in public places from strangers has a greater resonance with the public and makes a greater contribution to public concern.
	The Bill has some potentially useful measures, but they will be so only if they are put into practice alongside many others. It has measures that essentially close loopholes, cover gaps or nuance existing policiesfor example, the difference between a banning order and an antisocial behaviour orderand measures in areas where the pressure to be seen to act has become overwhelming. I am not yet convinced that the measures on imitation firearms will reduce the number of victims of firearm crime, but I understand why my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary believes that it is necessary none the less to be seen to act against what the public generally regard as a scandalthe widespread marketing of such weapons.
	Let me deal with a couple of issues that should have been acted on previously. The measures on alcohol disorder zones are overdue. I wish that it had been possible to incorporate that approach in the Licensing Act 2003. The current proposals reflect the debate that raged within Government at that time between the argument that the whole industry, responsible or not, is plying people with alcohol in town and city centres and needs to pick up the cost, and the argument that we have to deal with badly run premises. It is welcome that my right hon. Friend has moved towards saying that the industry as a whole, not the relatively small number of badly run premises, has to pick up the costs of policing, late night transport, street cleaning and so on. The Bill potentially takes us a long way in the direction of ensuring that the costs lie where they properly should. However, I have a couple of caveats about that; it will be important to scrutinise the Bill carefully as it goes through Committee.
	I take my right hon. Friend's answer to my earlier question straightforwardly. He clearly wishes that the statutory scheme of an alcohol disorder zone, with fees set in Whitehall, should be applied locally in as few places as possible, and hopes that the threat of an action plan or the putting in place of an action plan will lead to better, locally tailored schemes that suit the needs of each area. I share that view. I have no desire to see a national scheme imposed willy-nilly on every single town and city centre. Equally, let us be blunt about this, if the Bill does not result in a much more substantial contribution from the drinks industry to the costs of policing and maintaining our town and city centres, it will fall short of what is needed. At the moment, the costs of policing those town and city centres is borne by council tax payers who by and large do not live in themthey pay their bills but do not see a police officer on a Friday or Saturday night because they are all down at the town centre policing the binge drinking. We must ensure that relatively low-scale voluntary schemes are not put in place as an alternative to a proper charging regime. Although I commend, and have seen, many of the voluntary schemes that have been mentioned today, most of them fall well short of the level of contribution that is required towards the costs of policing our town and city centres.
	I hope that we will be able to see the guidance that comes from the Home Office before the Bill completes its passage in this House, because that will be crucial in determining the threshold of the problem that one must have before one can initiate an action plan or have an alcohol disorder zone. If that threshold is set too high, the measures in the Bill will apply in too limited a number of circumstances.
	I want to turn briefly to the measures on knife crime.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: Before my right hon. Friend moves on to knives, I should like to bring him back to his observations on imitation guns. Does not he accept that one of the principal causes of crime is a culture of crime, which may of course come from deprivation but may also come from many other sourcesthe media and the like? One of the essential cultures of gun crime is the existence of freely available replica weapons which are identical to lethal firearms and which are available in newsagents and shops that are close to schools for virtually nothing. Is not the creation of that culture something that we in the House should take seriously and outlaw?

John Denham: That may be true, though I have yet to see the evidence that makes it believable. It is certainly an argument in favour of my right hon. Friend's proposals.
	I want to address another issue of crime and culture in relation to knife crime. We know that the way to deal with many kinds of crime is to get to the root causes of the problem, to identify the perpetrators or gangs of perpetrators, to target them, to deal with them effectively and to have a multi-agency approach to tackling the problems. However, we have not yet applied that approach to the problem of knife crime. The Bill addresses the particular issue of taking knives into schools, yet, as we all know, the reality is that schools and local education authorities are often not engaged in wider crime reduction activities or wider measures against antisocial behaviour. The measures that schools take internally to deal with gangs and bullying often do not link up with those being taken in the wider community to deal with the same young people who are causing a problemthe same bullying, the same violence and the same gangs.
	Unless we can introduce into the area of knife carrying and knife use the targeted approach that we have used in relation to antisocial behaviour and are using in gun crime, we will not be effective in dealing with knife crime. I do not yet see an approach to dealing with the carrying of knives by young people that begins to be as coherent as our approach is becoming towards, at one end of the scale, antisocial behaviour, and, at the other end, guns. I can see little evidence that the Government's idea that we should consult and discuss with young people before we introduce policies that affect them has been brought into play in developing effective strategies for dealing with the carrying of knives by young people. Ironically, the Government have accepted for some time that we will not deal with gun crime unless we engage with young people in these communities, not only on guns but on a whole range of wider issues. The same needs to be true in relation to young people carrying knives. I fear that the measures in the Bill will be a little limited unless we take a broader approach.

Robert Flello: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is a culture whereby young people start to carry knives because they are concerned that other young people are carrying knives and that that perpetuates the problem? For example, one group of people is believed to carry knives. Consequently, a second group begins to carry them and then a third group starts carrying knives. As a result, the first group, whose members were perhaps not carrying them, also begins to do so. The culture is a self-sustaining spiral into despair.

John Denham: My hon. Friend makes an important point. There is little published evidence to tell us why knife carrying and knife use has grown.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be familiar with the Home Office report that was published in January. It made several important points about knife carrying and knife use. It said that the group most likely to carry knives comprised those young people who have been excluded from schools. Those, including the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), who belong to a party that calls for children to be excluded from schools at every opportunity, need to recognise, if they wish to tackle the causes of crime, the links between excluded young people and knife carrying. We must deal with that.
	Fear and peer group influence are reasons that young people give for carrying knives. However, I want to stress one of the points in the conclusions of the Home Office research, which states:
	Although the problem of young people carrying knives and other weapons appears, by common consent, to be growing, few dedicated public awareness or educational programmes have been developed or delivered. Similarly few dedicated programmes working with young people at risk of carrying and using knives have been developed. As a consequence, there are relatively few examples of good practice. Those that there are have not been widely disseminated or shared.
	I stress to my right hon. Friend the Minister that the challenge for the Government is not to change the BillI do not believe that the measure should contain a different bit of lawbut to develop a strategy for tackling the causes of knife crime and ensuring that schools link with outside agencies to identify the gangs where it predominates. If we are to be effective, the Government should also ensure that there are proper strategies and punitive measures for dealing with the ring leaders and that proper educational approaches exist for tackling young people who carry knives. The Government are trying to do that with gun crime at one end of the spectrum and antisocial behaviour at the other. A systematic, root-and-branch approach to young people and knife carrying needs to be developed.
	I met a group of students from my constituency this afternoon who happened to be in Westminster on an educational programme. Iand, I suspect, their teacherswas surprised not by their saying that there was not a problem in their school but by the fact that they regarded carrying knives as a significant issue for young people in our society. We need to build an awful lot around the Bill if we are to change a serious and developing culture in our country.

Mark Oaten: I welcome many of the Bill's provisions. There is no doubt that violent crime is a serious problem in this country and it is not helpful to get into a statistical debate about whether it is marginally up or down. There is a responsibility on all hon. Members to ascertain whether we can do more to reduce the incidence of violent crime.
	Violent crime has many causes and the Bill tackles two of the key pillars behind the causes of violent crime: alcohol and access to weapons. Drugs are clearly another factor. However, the combination of access to weapons and alcohol is a main reason for the increase in violent crime. We shall decide whether to support the Billwe are minded to support itby the following yardsticks: whether it grossly infringes civil liberties, whether it creates too many offences and whether the provisions will be effective. We have concerns, which we shall raise in Committee, but our judgment on those three key tests is that the measure contains provisions that constitute a step in the right direction and deserve our support.
	I want to comment on the important matter of tackling the causes of crime. As the former Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) said, the Bill tries to deal with some of our current problems and we need to do more to tackle the causes. Frankly, I am not prepared to take a lecture on that from the shadow Home Secretary, who has now left his place. Over the years, he has criticised my party when we have presented such arguments and been more than happy to portray us as soft on crime when we have argued for more creative solutions to try to tackle the causes of crime. I understand the need for the Conservative party to reinvent itself, but Conservative Members could at least acknowledge that some parties have argued strongly for such provisions for many years and been strongly criticised for doing that.
	Alcohol is an important factor. I am critical of the Government because theyand probably all political partieshave been chasing the problem, which has run ahead of us. I met members of a residents association in Winchester in my constituency this morning. They raised anxieties that will be familiar to all Members of Parliament. Those concerns apply not only to inner-city areas but to market towns in rural areas. We know the statistics: 25,000 admissions a year to accident and emergency departments and 50,000 violent offences are the result of people drinking too much, let alonewe have not discussed it in a Home Office debatethe implications for the health of our nation.
	It took a long time for the Government to respond. We had to wait many years for an alcohol strategy, which is regrettable because joining health and the consequences of crime in a fully thought-out strategy should have been done many years ago. Powers are in place but some have been difficult to enforce. We heard earlier that only 11 landlords a year have been prosecuted for allowing drunken or riotous behaviour on their premises. That raises two questions. First, is it simply a matter of ineffective policing? Secondly, and more worryingly given the Government's intentions in the Bill, are the prosecutions hard to achieve and is it hard for the police to identify the publican or premises responsible for allowing the serving of alcohol that led to such behaviour? If that is the case, it raises serious questions about the Government's proposals.
	We have long argued for the imposition of some sort of levy. We believe that it is wrong that many communities, especially in rural areas, experience the removal of police, so that, on Friday and Saturday nights, they are tied up in city centres. Local taxpayers ask why they should fund clearing up the mess for an industry that makes a great deal of money from alcohol. We therefore support the concept of imposing some levy or charge.
	We also want to support voluntary action by the industry, which is a sensible way forward. A couple of weeks ago, the industry made positive announcements, such as a willingness to end the practice of happy hours. However, that brings consequences. If part of the industry behaves well, wants to be responsible, signs up to join an association and is prepared to act by reducing happy hours, other parts of the industry that do not belong to the association will simply fill the void. Indeed, they could benefit financially because part of the sector was not holding happy hours. We cannot simply rely on the industry, because there will always be those who do not join industry forums and try to make a profit out of any action.
	In Committee, we need to establish clarity about who will be affected by the alcohol disorder zones and the related provisions. I take the Home Secretary's point about not believing what it is written in the Daily Express and other newspapers. However, if nightclubs can avoid the provisions by arguing that entertainment and dancing, not selling alcohol, are their main focus, it would cause disquiet because late-night entertainment in our city centres is often concentrated in them. We therefore need to be clear about who will be affected.
	I should also like more clarity about what the levy will be spent on. Simply giving it to the police might prove effective in reducing the cost to taxpayers of police on Friday and Saturday nights. However, let us also consider other forms of support for our night-time economy. Could we invest the levy in more CCTV? Could we consider having better trained doorkeepers for pubs and nightclubs? Could we use the money to contribute towards ensuring better late-night transport so that the problem of the cab queue outside the kebab shop where everybody waits can be resolved through creative schemes, such as that which operates near me in Salisbury, and provides publicly funded ways in which to get people back out of the city centre to their homes? We should consider using the levy not only for policing but for a wider range of matters so that we can help the night-time economy.
	What will happen if one lives in an alcohol disorder zone? What will be the impact on the price of people's property? What will be the impact on someone trying to sell their house when everyone in the community is saying, Hang on a minute. No. 14 Burble walk is in an alcohol disorder zone? The measures could have a considerable impact on people living in the zones. They might welcome attempts to clear up the problems there, but we must also understand the implications for property prices.

Stephen McCabe: What does the hon. Gentleman think is more important: speculating about a possible impact on property prices because a problem is being dealt with or leaving the poor individual to deal with the problems that they experience every night of the week? Surely he cannot argue that property prices should take priority over tackling those problems.

Mark Oaten: I am not arguing that at all. It is the job of the Opposition to ask such questions in Committee and to ensure that we understand what the consequences of the Bill will be. If these zones are set up, a string of people will come into our surgeries saying, We are in a zone and are now blighted. We need to think the consequences through. My priority is to ensure that we solve this problem and turn those areas into pleasant places for people to live and enjoy their lives in. Let us recognise that, by putting these zones in place, rather than creating zones in which the public believe we are tackling a problem, we could by default create zones that the public think are unsafe to visit at night or to live in. They could become no-go zones because they had had that label put on them, and I do not want that to happen. The measure could represent a sensible way forward, but let us be sensible about recognising the possible consequences of creating such zones, which I assume will be very publicly identified.

Robert Flello: Surely the hon. Gentleman is missing the point. Do not people who live in such areas already have the problem of depressed house prices precisely because of all the trouble that is going on? The whole point of putting an alcohol disorder zone in place is to address the problem, rather than to create one. The whole community would already know that it was a problem area, and these measures are about tackling that problem.

Mark Oaten: I do not think that we are disagreeing on this issue. I am simply trying to think through the consequences of creating the zones. It is in all our interests to ensure that people regard them as a way forward, so let us make sure that we get the legislation right and that we do it properly. If we get this wrong, the zones will be regarded by the community as areas that have been written off, and we do not want that to happen. There is also the issue of how people can appeal the question of whether they should be in the zone. In Committee, we need to ensure that proper measures are in place to enable people to argue whether they should be in a designated zone.
	A more fundamental question relates to how the so-called voluntary period will operate. If it is the intention to create a system in which the local authority and the police can come together and produce a local community planwhich, if put in place and operated fully, would mean that an alcohol disorder zone did not have to be created and that the financial levy would not have to be put in placeI am not clear where the incentive would be for people to go along with such a voluntary scheme. Some organisations would probably prefer to operate under a compulsory scheme, because other organisations would have to contribute through the levy. Will the Minister help us, either today or in Committee, to understand how the funding will operate under the voluntary scheme? Who will fund a voluntary plan? Or would we get action only if we moved to a full scheme after a voluntary one had failed, because that is when the money would come through?
	The answer might be hidden in the regulatory impact assessment, which we received quite late. It states that the consequences of the alcohol disorder zones to business would be a 6.2 million voluntary cost, and a 2.4 million compulsory cost. It is not clear whether that means that the Government envisage most of the costs being paid by businesses under the voluntary scheme and the 2.4 million compulsory cost being triggered only if the voluntary scheme failed and the area became a designated zone. We seem to be in danger of creating a system in which there is no real incentive to improve. A business creating problems in an area would know that it might as well pay its levy because the gains that would result from people coming into the area would be great. It would also know that another 10 premises in the area were going to contribute towards clearing up its problems. We need to tackle this issue.

John Denham: Has the hon. Gentleman considered the fact that at least one midlands police force has estimated that the excess cost of policing one city centre for a year would be 1 million? Is he suggesting that the amount that the Government are planning to raise through this scheme would represent only a tiny proportion of the policing costs that currently apply in our major towns and cities?

Mark Oaten: Absolutely. The cost of dealing with the problems caused by this kind of behaviour is enormous. The Government rightly point out in their regulatory impact assessment that, by making this investment, we could help to reduce those costs by creating a better night-time economy, but this is not a clear-cut issue. I have seen examples of city centres with problems, where businesses could benefit in the long term by making a small contribution because more customers would come in if the problems were dealt with.
	The provision to introduce drinking banning orders will create a new form of civil order and I am worried about whether it is appropriate to create yet more offences. I asked the Home Secretary earlier what the difference would be between these banning orders and the provisions that deal with drunk and disorderly behaviour, and I was not convinced by his argument. He seemed to suggest that the new orders were designed to deal with problems of disorder created by drink. I thought that that was drunk and disorderly behaviour. I am nervous about creating many new offences.
	I am also concerned that the Bill would remove the reporting restrictions on cases in which an individual was served with a drinking banning order. In cases involving 16 and 17-year-olds, that would mean that their cases would automatically be reported. I am not necessarily against the reporting of cases in which it is appropriate for the public to know about the individual concerned, but surely the presumption should be that it would not be appropriate. Otherwise, we might create a situation in which a person is automatically named and shamed, although that might not be the most appropriate thing to do, particularly if they were only 16.

James Clappison: This point might need further exploration in Committee, but does the hon. Gentleman at least recognise the value of the distinction between an order that restrains someone from doing something that might become an offence, and their actually committing an offence, which would go on to their criminal record?

Mark Oaten: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, because that issue will certainly have to be considered in Committee, but I am concerned here about the presumption that everyone should be named and shamed. Rather than make that assumption, it would be better to judge in each case whether it would be more effective to name and shame someone.
	We support many of the measures in the Bill and would like to see them work, but would it not be sensible to pause in regard to the other changes in the licensing regime? Many of these measures will not be in place when the new 24-hour licensing regime is implemented. At the very least, the Government should delay that implementation until these measures are in force, because the two sets of provisions should work together. We seem to be running ahead with one before the relevant control mechanisms are in place.
	On gun crime, various points have been made about the offences outlined in the Bill. The number of offences relating to possessing a firearm has been reduced, which suggests that some progress has been made in tackling offences relating to how and when a person carries a firearm. However, there has also been a big increasefrom 13,000 to 24,000over the past few years in crimes involving guns. Many of the Government's proposals on airguns have our support. We have heard about the awful cases in Scotland and Darlington in which youngsters sadly lost their lives in incidents involving airguns and we support what the Government are trying to achieve, particularly in relation to the measures on shooting over a boundary.
	There is a muddle over raising the age at which a person can buy an airgun from 17 to 18 and over all the various ages involved in such regulations. I am not convinced by the evidence that changing the age from 17 to 18 will make an enormous difference. At the moment, we have a minimum age of 15 for shotguns, 17 for rifles and now 18 for airguns. That is three different ages for three different kinds of weapon. I hope that the Government will use this Bill as an opportunity to clarify these provisions, because they must be a nightmare to enforce. The fact that someone can purchase a shotgun, but not an airgun, at 15 suggests that we need to examine the age limits.
	There has been a large increase in cases involving replica guns, which cause enormous difficulties for the police. In some areas, the police estimate that half their armed police call-outs are a result of the sighting of an imitation firearm. That is a waste of police time, but, sadly, it is often the cause of a tragedy as well. The Government are right to want to deal with that and we support their wish to tackle two problems with replica guns: they are used because they look like real guns and they can be converted to carry live ammunition. The Home Office and the Home Secretary have said that it will be difficult, and it will, but we will help the Government over the definition in Committee. I thought that the Home Secretary made a good first attempt, but we need to test and probe the definition. We shall also need to take account of the point made by the last Home Affairs Committee. What should be done if someone in a dark alley has a wooden table leg hidden under a blanket? What should be done in similar instances? I believe that the police shot someone because he had what they thought was a gun, but was in fact a cigarette lighter. I am sure that such cases are not the majority, but they will need to be considered in Committee.
	I hope that the Government will deal with representations from the sport industry. Of course, the priority must be making our country safer, but we must listen to what that industry says. It is estimated that 4 million people use air weapons. Target shooting is an Olympic sport. Sensible discussions are needed and it is encouraging that the Home Secretary is engaging in some. I have spoken to representatives of the industry and they support much of the Bill, but they take issue with technical points involving the making of ammunition and the link with primers. Simple adjustments could be made that would probably allow them to go on making ammunition at home while meeting the Home Secretary's requirements. I hope that we can discuss such issues positively, along with airsoft weapons and re-enactment societies
	We support what the Government are trying to do about knives. They are certainly a problem in London. Apparently 361 incidents involving knives are recorded each week and, in January alone, there were 15 murders that have been attributed to stabbing. The importance of the issue should not be underestimated. The problem of children carrying knives was mentioned earlier. A quarter of the boys who were asked about it admitted having carried a weapon and nearly all of them specified a knife. Although some may have been young lads boasting, it is a frightening statistic.
	The Government have suggested solutions, but I am not convinced about all of them. I am particularly worried about the proposal to raise the age at which a knife can be legally purchased from 16 to 18. It will be hard to enforce. Already, half the shops break the law by selling knives to under-16s, according to spot checks carried out by the Trading Standards Institute. If that is happening now, how will it be possible to enforce the increase in the legal age? It is ridiculous that a couple can marry at 16 and put a kitchen knife on their wedding list. We must discuss silly situations like that in Committee.
	Will the Government also think again about sentences? The maximum sentence for carrying a knife in public is currently only two years, whereas for carrying a gun it is seven years. Both weapons are killers and there is a strong case for enabling judges to impose a similar maximum sentence for knife carrying. When I raised the matter in Home Office questions a couple of weeks ago, the Home Secretary said that he was prepared to think about it. I hope that we can press the Government again in Committee.
	I am instinctively uneasy about allowing school heads to carry out checks. I realise that there is a problem over guns and, particularly, knives in schools, and I know that, as the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen said, it is a key issue in exclusions. Indeed, 62 per cent. of children are excluded for carrying knives. But do wereally want to give teachers and heads that responsibility? How exactly will it work? Which classes will they pick on? Do I feel comfortable about my child being at a school where she is automatically searched to establish whether she has a knife on her? We must ensure that checks are carried out sensitively and establish that teachers consider what they are doing appropriate. Again, the intention is right, but we must not turn off the teachers' unions.

John Pugh: Clause 35 states:
	A person who exercises a power under this section may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances.
	It is not clear that that does not mean teachers wrestling with defiant pupils suspected of carrying weapons. Do we not need clear guidelines so that legal and physical dangers can be avoided?

Mark Oaten: My hon. Friend is right. It will be necessary to tie down the guidelines, to work with teachers' unions and to ensure that there is proper training. It is a sensitive issue and we must tread with caution.
	Controlling the way in which guns and knives enter the country has been mentioned. I am worried about the purchase of such products on the internet. I have been able to print out some extraordinary information from the internet that troubles me enormously, involving not just replicas but working guns. I hope that the Home Secretary will speed up his work on that. We are introducing a number of measures, but it would help the Government a great deal if we could prevent ownership of such weapons, especially through the internet.
	We will not oppose the Bill. We will try to deal with some of our worries in Committee. We hope that the Bill will make a difference, but none of it will make a difference unless we establish why individuals get drunk and carry knives or guns in the first place. That is a fundamental problem that we must resolve.

Several hon. Members: rose

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind Members that Mr. Speaker has imposed a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.

Gerald Kaufman: The hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) complained that his party was depicted as being soft on crime. His party voted against the whole of the Anti- social Behaviour Act 2003, and members of his party on Manchester city council opposed it on the grounds that there was already too much antisocial behaviour legislation. The hon. Gentleman was worried about the Bill's effect on civil liberties. We are all champions of civil liberties, but my constituents value one civil liberty in particular: freedom from crime and from antisocial behaviour. If the Liberal Democrats had their way, we would not be dealing with that. My constituents in the Chapman street and Platt lane areas who are victims of antisocial behaviour will not be impressed by that nitpicking approach.
	Of course there are huge issues involving crime. As statistics demonstrate, no one could claim that the Government's war against crime is anywhere near wholly successful. The fact is, however, that the introduction of antisocial behaviour legislationpioneered in Manchester and, indeed, in my constituencyis one of the most important advances in this regard that any Government have achieved. This Bill will deal with the sale of drink to minors, and that could have a huge impact. In Gorton, particularly in the Chapman street area, we have heard repeated complaints about retailers selling drink to minors. The police are acting, and are prosecuting in one case, but the Bill will strengthen the process.
	My constituents want to be able to live in peace. They want to be free from antisocial behaviour and from knife and gun crime. The Bill will help in that regard. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who pioneered antisocial behaviour legislation, has introduced to the dictionaries a new noun, asbo, and a new verb, to asbo. It is talked about in the streets. When the original legislation was introduced eight years ago, I told him, The Bill looks good, but only when my constituents tell me that it is working will I be satisfied. My constituents, although they have many misgivings and want much more to be done, say that it is working. That is why they want more to be done. That is why they want action to be taken on houses that are being used illicitly as shabeens and for other purposes.
	This legislation can help on that. That is why people are delighted with the drink-banning elements of the Bill. It is not necessarily gangs that are causing the problems; collections of small numbers of young people are doing so. Let me make it clear that the overwhelming majority of young people would never dream of behaving badly, but a small minority can make life hell for ordinary people, who just want to live their lives in peace. This legislation will assist in giving them the increased tranquillity that they have the right to ask for.
	When I have constituents who are brave and decent enough to provide information to the police, I want the backing of the law and that is what this legislation increases. I pay tribute to Miss Irene Thorpe, who lives in Gorton and was given the MBE in the birthday honours list. She is a brave woman who has fought crime in the area. People are ready to do that provided they have legislative backing, and the Government will give them that backing.
	I pay tribute to the police in our area. Of course, their response is not always what my constituents want, but the police are implementing our legislation, which they welcome. When the police and the public work togethermembers of the public in Fallowfield, Gorton and elsewhere in my constituency do work togetherit increases tranquility, makes life better, and increases property values, which the Liberal Democrat spokesman was complaining about. Where we have good community development, as we have in the Longsight area of my constituency, property prices are rising. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Flello) is right. People know that, if there is a lot of crime in the area, designation of the zone helps to deal with that crime. It does not decrease property values; it increases them.
	I therefore say to Ministers that the measures that they have introduced, including this Bill, are making life better. The Liberal Democrat spokesman says that he is worried about naming and shaming people. A young woman in my constituency called Lorraine Ogden had ASBOs imposed on her. She went on offending. She was named on leaflets and indeed in the House. She has now said that her life has improved because she has been given the opportunity to improve her life and become a constructive citizen.
	In Gorton, we have had the on the streets project. Young offenders who have who had ASBOs imposed on them are now constructive citizens thanks to the wardens who created that system in their spare time. We want to make sure that innocent people are protected and that young people do not ruin the whole of their lives when they make mistakes. The provisions in the Bill on replica knives and binge drinking will be better for those people, because they will help them to stop behaving in an antisocial way. Heaven knows they will be far better for my constituents, who have had to put up with such behaviour all around them.
	Although the Bill deals with city centres, I hope that Ministers will consider extending it to district centres because, in a large city such as Manchester, not only the centre of the city but other parts are oppressed.
	The shadow Home Secretary talked about the statistics of crime. Let me give him the latest statistics for Greater Manchester. In the year to March, there were 42,000 fewer offences, an 11.5 per cent. reduction. There were 2,000 fewer violent crimes, and 67,752 offences were brought to justice, an increase of 21.9 per cent. Domestic burglary was down by 10,616 offences, a fall of 28.1 per cent. The number of robberies was down 1,731, an 18.7 per cent. fall. Vehicle crime, which is one of the worst scourges that people have to put up with, fell by 9,280 offences, a reduction of 15.6 per cent. In April, the figures have improved still further.
	It is not paradise. Far too many people are still putting up with crime and with antisocial behaviour. The Bill is not a panacea, but heaven knows it will help my good, brave and decent constituents to come forward to fight crime and to ensure that antisocial behaviour, gun crime and knife crime are reduced. That is what my constituents want. That is what they have the right to want. That is what they have the right to work for and to vote for, and that is what Ministers are helping them to do.

David Burrowes: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me the privilege of making my maiden speech today. I begin by declaring an interest as a solicitor. It is a welcome opportunity to speak in this debate, given that violent crime is of major concern to my constituents.
	First, as is customary, I pay tribute to my predecessor, Stephen Twigg. However, I do so less as a matter of custom, and more out of a personal respect for his record of hard work and service to an area we both grew up in and care deeply about. I am sure that his talents will continue to find a prominent place in public lifebut with respect, I trust not in Enfield, Southgate.
	Before addressing the subject of the debate, I would like to describe the constituency that I now represent as Member of Parliament and the borough that I still represent as a councillor. It is long-established and distinguished, not least by its names. Enfield was literally the end field in the old county of Middlesex. Southgate was the South gate to the royal hunting forests.
	The words Enfield, Southgate are rarely uttered by political pundits without being preceded by the word leafy. Indeed, the constituency is green, with tree-lined streets, and an abundance of parks and farmland to boot. It is also suburban, in the best sense of the word, straddling the area between London and Hertfordshire. The green belt is the natural check on development and is cherished, particularly by its nearest neighbours in Hadley Wood. It needs, though, to be protected by the vigilant eyes of the active local residents associations and councillors.
	The constituency includes Cockfosters, which is where I grew up. Some will know of it simply as being the end of the Piccadilly line, others for its being the subject of adverts for alcohol beverages, and others for more cerebral reasons, since it is the home of Sir John Betjeman and Trent park.
	The park has been home to the Sassoon family, prisoners of war and Middlesex university. It is described, rightly, as the jewel in the crown of the constituency. Indeed, Trent park has royal links, being known by locals as the secret childhood playground of Her Majesty the Queen and Princess Margaret. Her Majesty was known to be partial to the chocolate cake cooked by the housekeeper, Mrs. Gubby. Sadly, the recipe has not stood the test of time, but Trent park certainly has. The university is due to submit plans to increase development in the park. I will oppose any plans that inhibit future generations from fully enjoying our wonderful country park.
	Another significant part of the constituency is Palmers Green, which is well known not only for being the backdrop to the last Harry Potter film but for Green lanes. The street boasts a diverse collection of shops, small firms, cafs and restaurants and a diverse community. Only this weekend, the active Green Lanes Business Association, championed so admirably by Costas Georgiou, celebrated the vibrancy of the area with a successful shopping festival.
	It is now traditional for the newly elected Member for Enfield, Southgate to include in his maiden speech the north circular road, which runs through the constituency. I should choose my words carefully, as I would not want to suggest that this clogged-up artery is the site of any significant movement. It does not so much run though as pass through, and usually its traffic does not even do that. Sir Anthony Berry, in his maiden speech some 40 years ago, and, after him, Michael Portillo, expressed hope that the road would be widened shortly.
	Even now, with the London Mayor's latest and inadequate road plans exhibiting in the constituency, there is an unmet need for a full widening scheme properly to tackle congestion. I sincerely hope that this will be the last maiden speech in which this issue needs to be raised.
	The constituency still retains its local heritage as a collection of villagesSouthgate Green, Oakwood, Grange Park and Winchmore Hill. During the election campaign, it was clear that constituents felt an increasing sense of powerlessness over what happens in their community. They want their local voice to be louder on issues as varied as the proliferation of mobile phone masts and local policing. I wish to amply the voice of Enfield, Southgate. I believe that my role is not to rely on the powers of the state being used on their behalf, but to return those powers to the people who make the real difference.
	A true description of my constituency needs to include mention of some fine people who give the local community its strength. Enfield, Southgate is the proud home of the oldest woman in England, Judy Ingamells, who is 111 years old. One of the highlights of the election campaign was to visit Mrs. Ingamells and experience what she says is the secret of her long life: a good sense of humour. Her motto for life will no doubt meet with approval from Labour Members; Never look back, always look forward. Was she the originator of that motto? Mrs. Ingamells was born during the Administration of Lord Salisbury, has lived through the Administrations of many other great Prime Ministers and still lives in hope.
	Enfield, Southgate has many public servants, none more so than Malcolm Hudson, the head teacher of St. Paul's Church of England school in Winchmore Hill, who is retiring next month after 12 years of excellent leadership, backed up by years of distinguished service to education. I have come to appreciate the ethos of service that is displayed by many local people in education, health, transport and the police. The challenge is to provide the necessary freedom and opportunity for these people to flourish, and to enable local solutions rather than their being smothered by the heavy hand of government.
	The heart of the constituency is to be found in its voluntary and local associations. Two in particular come to mind, from whose services, respectively, 1,000 people each week benefit. The first is TAB centre plus, situated in Bowes ward in a pocket of deprivation. The local church, under the compassionate leadership of David James, has reached out to its neighbours and its premises provide the base for countless diverse community activities. The second is the well known Chicken Shed theatre company, which has its home in Southgate and has provided theatrical excellence throughout the last 30 years, working with and being accessible and available to a complete cross-section of young people. Both these organisations shine out as beacons in the local community. Neither benefits significantly from state funds, but their strength is the voluntary commitment of dedicated people.
	I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to indulge in a tour of my constituency. Some hon. Members may question how the subject of today's debate could be relevant to leafy Enfield, Southgate. That question was shockingly answered nearly 12 months ago, when a local young man was brutally and senselessly murdered on his way home in Southgate Green. Sadly, this is not an isolated incident. Within a mile there have been other murders, serial rapes, stabbings, shootings, an armed robbery and an abduction.
	I believe that we will not significantly reduce violent crime until we have seriously tackled drug abuse. I saw for myself during the campaign how drug dealing was openly taking place on the residential streets of Enfield, Southgate. I have been to our local prison, HMP Pentonville, on many occasions; only, I hasten to add, in my professional capacity as a criminal solicitor. I am told by inmates that the prison is awash with drugs. It is apparently easier to obtain crack cocaine and heroin on the inside of prison than on the outside. This madness has to stop.
	Tackling drug abuse requires action on many different levels, and I await with interest the Government's review of cannabis classification and trust that good sense will return. For the last 11 years, most of my clients, sadly, have been drug addicts. I have seen the crucial role that strong families play in rehabilitation. When a drug addict is serious about rehabilitation, we need to be ready with a compassionate response. Effective treatment is required, as is practical support for the family.
	Reducing violent crime and making our streets safer is the priority for me as Member of Parliament for Enfield, Southgate. I am committed to work with the council, local people, the police, families and other agencies to combat crime and to turn back the worrying tide of drug abuse which is now lapping at our borders and threatening our children.

Lynda Waltho: It gives me great pleasure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to make my maiden speech and to follow the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes). I congratulate him on his speech and look forward to further debates with him in this Chamber on this and many other subjects.
	I am especially grateful to be given the opportunity to speak on violent crime reduction as there is much to tell and celebrate about the decline in crime in Stourbridge since my party came to power in 1997. I am very proud of the fact that Stourbridge is one of the safest places to live in the west midlands. Together with the local police and council, a large number of partners and agencies are working together to ensure that Stourbridge is a safer place for everyone who visits, lives or works in the constituency.
	Over the past seven years, the safe and sound community safety partnership has been successful in reducing crime across the constituency. Indeed, last year's figures show a reduction in robbery of 59 per cent., a fall in vehicle crime of 31 per cent. and a 41 per cent. fall in burglary. Contrary to the claims of the Conservative party, there has been a fall of 8 per cent. in violent crime, which, incidentally, has continued over April and May. In addition, there has been a significant rise in the numbers of people receiving treatment for drug and alcohol misuse and waiting times for this treatment have been reduced. I am pleased that domestic violence and hate crimes are high on the partnership's agenda, and that there are two new domestic violence courts in the Dudley borough as well as a variety of support services on hand to help.
	Tackling antisocial behaviour is a key priority and, since 1999, a community safety team has co-ordinated local council, police and other partners to ensure a consistent and successful approach. In addition, the local council funds a co-ordinator to ensure that work is going on to reduce racially aggravated incidents and those motivated by religious or ethnic hatred or homophobia.
	Many of my constituents are impressed by the work of the police community support officers who have been assigned to communities and by their effect in reducing low-level antisocial behaviour. They provide a great deal of reassurance to all residents. Of course the excellent work done by our neighbourhood watches across the constituency cannot be ignored.
	I should like to mention here one particular co-ordinator, Mr. Peter Timmins of New Farm road watch, with whom I was privileged to spend an hour or two patrolling the area. Mr. Timmins knows every house and householder, co-ordinates with the residents, police and local agencies and was able to give me a breakdown on every problem and situation on his estate. We really do owe a great deal to these residents who do such a professional job in an entirely voluntary capacity.
	Of course it would be entirely remiss of me not to mention the local Stourbridge police force, led most ably by Inspector Mark Thomas, with whom I spent a night on patrol duty only last Friday night. The massive reduction in crime figures in Stourbridge to which I referred earlier is a particular success, not just because of the actual fall but because of the circumstances in which Inspector Thomas and his team managed to achieve them. For those who have not visited Stourbridgeto be fair, I think the majority of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench did visit at some time or other during my campaign; at least, it felt like itto appreciate that achievement fully, one needs to understand that Stourbridge town centre is encircled by a ring road, which somewhat cuts it off from other parts of the town. There are subways, but for the most part they are detested by my constituents as smelly, forbidding places, and there is only one surface crossing.
	In the last two years, a number of new large wine bars and pubs have opened up. As a result, and given the presence, too, of a popular nightclub, on most Friday and Saturday nights up to 4,000 youngand merrypeople might be decanted into the town centre within an hour, penned in by the ring road and dependent for their dispersal entirely on the supply of taxis and minicabs. In many areas, that could have meant disaster, but not in Stourbridge. Inspector Thomas has redesigned the police team patterns and set up a successful pubwatch group, comprising the main bar owners and managers and other traders in the town.
	On my tour of duty, I witnessed excellent community police work and was really impressed by the professional and calm manner in which all situations were dealt with. I did worry, however, that I might wake up to a bad headline when a reporter from my local newspaper saw me being accompanied out of a bar by two burly officers and ushered into the back of a squad car.
	However, I might be knocking on the door of the Minister for Policing, Security and Community Safety, my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Hazel Blears), at some point, given the cramped conditions in which the police are working. Such conditions are causing some problems, not the least of which is the lack of adequate cell space for offenders. As a result, officers are often taken out of the area and asked to make use of cell space as far afield as Sutton Coldfield and Coventry. That puts undue pressure on the rest of the policing team, and sometimes leads to a reduced response time for other incidents.
	I am grateful to have some conventions to honour today. They are conventions in a good cause, and I can think of no better place to start than with a celebration of the achievements of my predecessor, Debra Shipley. Stourbridge has been well served by Debra Shipley, and it was a great shock to us all when she announced her decision to stand down due to ill health. Debra's work on child protection, domestic violence, care standards for the elderly and children's dietslong before that became a focus for celebrity attentionhas changed the lives of many people and raised awareness across the UK of what are serious issues. It is a testament to her hard work and dedication that at virtually every door on which I knocked during the campaignbelieve me, I knocked on thousandsthe resident either knew Debra, had been helped by her, or knew of somebody whom she had helped. She was a very determined and hard-working Member of Parliament, and I hope that one day, I will be deemed a worthy successor.
	The past 10 weeks or so have been something of a blur to me. I was selected only a week before the election was called, so to say that I have been on a steep learning curve is something of an understatement. But I am very conscious of the fact that I am here not just because of my efforts, but because of those of a vast army ofpeopleparty organisers and staff, members, volunteers and supportersall of whom encouraged and sustained me during the campaign. I am especially indebted to Alderman John Simpsonoften referred to as Mr. StourbridgeBarbara Sykes, Joan Kendrick, Chris Hale and Joe Payne, chairman of my constituency party, who, in his 50th year of party membership, masterminded the campaign to retain Stourbridge for Labour.
	Anybody who searches for Stourbridge on the internet will no doubt be directed to a variety of unflattering descriptive terms such as unremarkable, average or not a picture-postcard destination. I am afraid that I cannot agree. It is said that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and when I first arrived in the town in the early 1980s, it seized my heart and has grown more beautiful to me each year. It is the town in which I married, and in which I chose to teach and to make my home. It is the place where we chose to bring up and educate our children, and in which we aim to stay. It is also the constituency that I am so proud to represent.
	Stourbridge owes its name to an ancient bridge erected across the River Stour, which until recently formed the boundary between Worcestershire and Staffordshire. It was part of the manor of a powerful Norman Lord, William Fitz Ansculf, who supervised his estates from his hilltop castle in Dudleya fact not lost on my constituents, many of whom to this day resent the fact that Stourbridge is governed and supervised from Dudley by the metropolitan council.
	The excellent grazing land led to the growth of a thriving wool trade, which is still represented, by a fleece, on the town's coat of arms. The rapidly expanding iron industry soon caught up and overtook the wool trade. Fortunes were made by the mill owners, and forges were powered by water-wheels on the Stour. Local coal, limestone and fireclay fuelled development in the 16th and 17th centuries, giving birth to the area known as the black country. The area became famous for the production of iron work and nails, chain making, bricks and heavy engineering. One of the most famous works was that of John Bradley and Co., which had the distinction of producing the Stourbridge Lionthe first locomotive to run on rails in America. Sadly, the works now lie idle. There is a campaign to restore them, which I am proud to support.
	Stourbridge is noted for its fine glass and crystal ware, although the rise of cheap imports has caused the industry to decline to a few specialist firms and studios that produce individual and short-run items. However, visitors can still take a stroll around the glass quarter, where the Ruskin glass centre may be found, which houses many skilled crafts people and some leading British studio designers. Some of my honourable female colleagues travelled on the excellent Labour women's campaign bus to visit me during the campaign. Having spent some time in the shop outlets that contribute to the local economy, they will, I am sure, attest to the centre's quality.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that the hon. Lady has had her time. I call Richard Ottaway.

Richard Ottaway: It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Lynda Waltho) and I congratulate her on her maiden speech. Those of us who knew her predecessor, Debra Shipley, will recognise that the hon. Lady is in every sense living up to her reputation and ability. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes), all three of whose predecessors I had the privilege of knowing. Tony Berry was an absolute star, I admired Michael Portillo, and I respected Stephen Twigg. My hon. Friend has shown every sign of being able to follow in their footsteps. I wish him well in his north circular campaign, but as a fellow London MP, I advise him not to hold his breath.
	This Bill is timely. According to today's edition of The Times, a ferry in Devon that has operated for more than 1,000 years is having to suspend service on Saturday nights because its operators cannot cope with the binge-drinking hooligans who use it. That illustrates the need to do something about this issue, but it remains to be seen whether this Bill is the answer. It is by any measure a modest Bill, and with the exception of the alcohol disorder zones, I remain slightly sceptical as to whether it will make much difference. There is a rising tide of crime; indeed, recorded violent crime has risen by 83 per cent. since 1998. However, one feature that I do welcome is the Bill's looking beyond deterrence through punishment to another way of addressing the problem. Conservative Front Benchers are right not to oppose the Bill.
	My main concern in representing the borough of Croydon in this debate is alcohol use, but I want also to mention the very serious problem of real and imitation firearms being used by young kids as fashion accessories, which they show off to others. If the Bill goes even a small way towards addressing that problem, it is to be welcomed. But a lot of violent crime is caused by alcohol, and whatever the Home Secretary may say, there is an inconsistency in introducing legislation to combat excessive alcohol use and violent crime, while at the same time introducing legislation to promote 24-hour drinking. When I intervened on him, he said that it is a question of personal use, and that one should not confuse such use with 24-hour drinking. That is no answer. There is an inconsistency here, and no less a person than Sir John Stevens says that the move to 24-hour drinking has to be slowed down.
	Many Members have spoken about the impact of alcohol-related disorder on the night-time economy. The British crime survey has pointed out that 30 per cent. of city-centre arrests are related to alcohol use. There is no doubt that dealing with alcohol-based problems imposes a huge burden on police resources, as it is expensive as well as time consuming. A recent survey showed that 70 per cent. of police officers were diverted from dealing with other crimes in order to cope with alcohol disorder and that 88 per cent. of police sergeants found that alcohol was the most significant disorder problem. The Prime Minister's strategy unit, referring to the Police Complaints Authority, said in a study of 58 deaths in custody that alcohol was a factor in two thirds of thema quite staggering statistic. We now face the situation where the PCC is actually suggesting that it is inappropriate for police officers to take drunken detainees into custody because of the difficulties that such action causes. The Prime Minister's strategy unit estimates the cost to society and the country as a whole at some 7 billion.
	In the borough of Croydon, the largest in London, alcohol-related problems are very serious indeed. There is a successful night-time economy at the centre of the town. It is a great place to go and it pulls in people from all over south London to enjoy a night out, to indulge in social drinking and to have a good timebut that brings its problems. A youth lifestyle survey showed that 39 per cent. of 18 to 24-year-olds now go binge drinking and binge drinkers are far more likely to offend.
	Some will remember the riots in Croydon town centre during the last World cup, when so many people came out of the vertical retail outlets to protest when England got knocked out of the competition. However, it is not just an occasional problem that happens only on such special occasions; it is a daily regular occurrence in Croydon. The British crime survey showed that more than half of all alcohol-related violence is between strangers and acquaintances and that it occurs in and around pubs, clubs and discos. The Home Secretary was right to say that we need a new approach to deal with that problem.
	The challenge is deciding how best to respond to the problem. Croydon police responded by putting on an extra shift of police officersamounting, if we include all the trainees, to 18 extra officers. The problem is that that means 18 police officers are not out in the rest of the borough dealing with all the other crime going onand, believe me, there is plenty of it. There is a fair amount of dissatisfaction within the borough about that. Securing adequate resources is the main problem.
	The industry is making substantial sums out of these vertical retail outlets. Anyone going into any of them on a Thursday, Friday or Saturday night will see hundreds of people drinking away like mad, smoking and having a good time. The vendors and owners of these outlets are making huge sums of money, which poses the question why they should not be paying for the extra security demands. That is why I support the alcohol disorder zones in the Bill.
	The Prime Minister said in his press conference that the alcohol disorder zones were a last resort. I have to say that that smacks of uncertainty and I would ask Ministers to approach the Bill with greater confidence in its positive outcomes. A consultation document before the election spoke of these outlets contributing towards the cost of disorder, but I have to say that I do not like the word contribute and I am worried that local authorities will be too timid. They have to operate in relation to the conditions of nuisance, annoyance and disorder, which are highly subjective.
	The explanatory notes say that authorities will be
	likely to cover the costs of initiatives to tackle the problem over and above the normal level of public services.
	I would like to see the right to charge in force whenever extra police are needed and I do not want a contribution or a likely recovery, but a definite oneand at a 100 per cent. level. That is what happens when specials are employed at football matches at Crystal Palace, for example, so why cannot these retail outlets pay for the costs of extra police in places such as Croydon town centre? I foresee rows if extra police are used but there are no alcohol disorder zones. There may be no problems, but if extra police are used, the retailers must pay.
	On the banning orders for persistent offenders, I am not convinced, frankly, that they will make much difference. I am glad that the Government have dropped the three strikes and you're out policy. Powers already exist in respect of the ASBO legislation, but if someone is banned from an area, all they will do, frankly, is go to Brightonthough I wish Brighton well, of course!
	The Bill gives the impression of action being taken, but so did the Licensing Act 2003. We are not talking about incremental legislation in which measures are progressively building up. It looks like it is just another stab or another go at trying to solve the problem. The Government's main difficulty is that they have raised expectations, but will the Bill make a difference? Frankly, the jury is out, but I wish them well in their objectives.

Stephen McCabe: I welcome the Bill and I gain the sense that many of us have been sent here by our constituents because they want to know that someone will do something about the problem of violent crime and drunken yobbish behaviour. People are fed up with it and they want us to do something about it.
	I received a letter the other week from a constituent, Mr. Smith of Sunderton road. This elderly gentleman wrote me a letter that is probably similar to many that we all receive. He was particularly upset by a report in a newspaper that a bunch of yobs had attacked a funeral cortege. They actually managed to break the window of one of the vehicles carrying a group of 60-year-old ladies who were mourning a lost relative. Mr. Smith rightly asks in his letter what kind of world we are living in and how we can tolerate such behaviour. My answer is that we cannot and will not tolerate it, which is why we need the Bill.
	I particularly welcome the proposals for dealing with weapons in general and imitation guns in particular. Many people have campaigned for these measures: rank-and-file police officers throughout the country will be relieved; and the Police Federation will be relieved, as will officers in armed response units. We must recognise that we are in danger, as was mentioned earlier, of developing a fashion culture about guns, particularly among some of our young people for whom guns end up being a sort of fashion accessory. That is one of the reasons why we should be concerned about imitation weapons, which are becoming part of a violent and aggressive culture. That is one good reason for tackling them.
	I acknowledge that my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) expressed some concerns about the problem of imitation guns, but it cannot be an accident that imitation weapons are prohibited devices in Canada and that controls are in force against them in places as far and wide as Australia, Malta and the Netherlands. Even in gun-loving California, there are massive restrictions on imitation weapons. We are certainly doing the right thing in the Bill.
	I intervened on the Home Secretary earlier to say that without tackling the internet, the measures in the Bill would be virtually pointless. That may have been a slightly inappropriate choice of words, but I would say to Ministers that the effect of the Bill will be severely diluted if we do not tackle the availability of weapons on the internet. I was struck the other week when the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell) wrote to eBay about the disgusting spectacle of Live 8 tickets, which were originally free, being traded for profit. The response was prompt and eBay closed it down. Would Ministers be prepared to write to the organisation about its trade in weapons in order to secure a similar response?
	I have some recent examples from the internet site, deactivated-weapons.co.uk. The problem is that we do not know whether those weapons are deactivated as there is no reliable test when they are put on the site. One can buy an MP40, an M4 carbine, a P38, a 226, which comes in a nice black, we are told, or a Chinese 7.6 rifle. Any kid can buy those guns on the net, so there is no point in taking steps to control weapons unless we tackle the internet business.
	I do not understand how we can have reached a situation where there are strict controls on reliable dealers yet people can flog anything they want on the internet. When they are tackled about that, they say that they are not actually responsible for the sale but that they merely facilitate the transaction. They certainly pocket the profit, which in some cases is massive, and it is often a profit on crime and death. I hope that I can persuade my right hon. and hon. Friends to reconsider the matter.
	Other Members have mentioned alcohol disorder zones. On balance, they are probably a good idea, although my preference is that people should be able to deal with the situation in a voluntary and co-operative way. I read a story today about Broad street, which is a large regeneration area in Birmingham city centre. By bringing together the police, the council, businesses and, interestingly, the hospital, money was raised to deploy extra police in the Broad street area. There have been two effects. The first is that crime has dramatically reduced. The police report that 18 months ago 40 per cent. of violent crime in the city centre occurred in the Broad street area. Due to that extra policing, the figure is now 10 per cent. Secondly, Broad street is bringing a large amount of money to Birmingham city centre.
	I am not as worried as the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) about constituents running to me bleating that the price of their house will be affected because we are tackling violent crime, but I agree that there could be problems about the way that the police and local authorities impose alcohol disorder zones. We must take care that we do not damage good regeneration initiatives by using such zones as a substitute funding mechanism. We should look at positive voluntary experiences and I hope that Ministers will reassure us that they will monitor the introduction of alcohol disorder zones so that problems do not arise.
	I want to make one more bid to my hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench. As well as tackling violent crime, we must make it clear that we do not condone those who have been convicted of it. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Security and Community Safety has been following the case of Mr. Lorworth Hoare, the convicted rapist who bought a lottery ticket when he was on weekend leave from his open prison and won 7 million. He has now left jail and it is reported that it costs about 10,000 a week to protect him. It is not much incentive to hard-pressed, decent, law-abiding citizens to know that money that could be spent on something else is being spent on protecting that rapist thug. Is there scope for an amendment whereby there would be an assessment of the services we provide for such people? A rapist worth 7 million who has to be protected by the police and probation services should be subject to a financial assessment so that we can recover some of those costs. If we cannot do that, why do not we simply keep him in prison? Then he will be perfectly safewell he might not be, but he certainly would not cost us what we are paying at present. If we were to impose a financial assessment on that chap, the money could be channelled back to the victims of crime and on tackling other aspects of violent crime instead of wasting it on him.

James Clappison: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Lynda Waltho) and my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes), both of whom made excellent and accomplished speeches, including well-justified tributes to their predecessors. I am sure that the House looks forward to hearing them again in future and that my hon. Friend, who is a near neighbour, will fight for many of the same causes as MPs in neighbouring Hertfordshire.
	The Bill contains some worthwhile measures. There are new developments in some fields and incremental changes in existing legislation and, as the Home Secretary conceded, there is some closing of loopholes. However, taken as a whole, the Bill's title is rather flattering to its contents. Although the Home Secretary has been more restrained than some of his predecessors in introducing legislation, even he oversold this measure. That has been a problem throughout Labour's period in government. There has been overselling of legislation since the beginning, with the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. At that time, Ministers would have dismissed out of hand the criticism that in eight years' time we should need a Bill on violent crime reduction; yet after eight years of one piece of oversold legislation after another, we had the spectacle of the Prime Minister appearing on the steps of Downing street just after the general election telling us that he had been taken aback by what he had heard during the campaign. He described the problem of yobs in society and talked of the need to rebuild respect.
	Where the Bill assists in rebuilding respect and tackling the yob culture it should be given support, but we should never lose sight of the fact that we need to do much more. Nowhere is that more true than in the field of firearms legislation. One of the most worrying developments of the past eight years has been the rise in gun crime, which has doubled in the past five years alone. No interpretation of the statisticsno sleight of handcan make them appear better. However we try to divide the categories of firearms legislation, as the Home Secretary was tentatively trying to do during his speech, we must keep in view the fact that there is a grave problem of crime involving the use of firearms. It is concentrated in certain communities and has blighted some inner-city areas. Many police officers believe that there is a risk that it will spread to many other communities.
	The provisions in part 2 will require careful examination. We need to ensure that they give as much protection to the public as possible while not losing sight of the desirability of safeguarding the interests of people who use weapons legitimately. The provisions must make some difference in practice, but above all we must remember that much more needs to be done, as the crisis is urgent.
	Similarly, much more remains to be done about alcohol-related disorder, although the problems are different. I commend much that was said by the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham). I had the pleasure of serving under his chairmanship of the Select Committee on Home Affairs when we conducted our inquiry into antisocial behaviour and considered the problem of alcohol-fuelled disorder. I was struck by the scale of the phenomenon of drinking in our cities and indeed our townswe have heard from hon. Members about the problems in communities of various sizes.
	The chief constable of Nottingham gave evidence to the Committee and told us that on the previous Friday between 80,000 and 100,000 people had been in Nottingham city centre, policed by only about 40 officers. He also told us that the licence capacity in Nottingham was 61,000 people in 1997 but that by 2004 it had risen to 108,000.
	Clearly, the vast majority of those who go for an evening out in Nottingham are well behavedthose of us who remember the film Saturday Night and Sunday Morning will know that this has happened from time to time in the past in Nottinghambut the sheer scale of the phenomenon and the atmosphere that it engenders must be addressed, and there are many ways to do so, other than just by enforcement alone, although that has a part to play, and by the marginal improvements in enforcement that the Bill will produce.
	I wish to refer to one of the ways in which we could tackle the problem of bad behaviour, antisocial behaviour, the decline in respect and so on. There was some talk before the publication of the Bill that the Government would consider giving extra protection to public servants. I was disappointed to find nothing in the Bill about that, and I understand that there are no other such proposalsif the Minister has any, I shall be pleased to hear about them.
	Public servants are often in the front line of those who face violence and antisocial behaviour. In many cases, they are not treated with the respect that they deserve, and which they once received. I think particularly of the lack of respect shown to and, sometimes, the offences committed against teachers, doctors and nurses, those in the emergency services, those who serve the public in local and central Government and those who provide transport for the public in many different ways. All those people serve the public.
	I believe that there is a caseI hope that we will be able to explore it in Committeefor considering providing extra protection to those servants of the public in the form of more serious sentences for those who commit offences against public servants. That can be justified in theory. Such things should be treated as aggravated offences because all the people whom I describe serve the public, the nature of their jobs requires them to come into contact with the public and the service that they provide to the public is interfered with by the offences that are committed against them.
	Even those in the emergency services can sometimes be the victim of such offences. Since these ideas came to mind, during last week in my constituency, there has been a serious report of how such things can arise. The fire service was called to deal with a report of a neon   sign malfunctioning outside a pizza parlour in Borehamwood at about half-past 10 in the evening. As a fireman examined the sign to find out whether it was safe, he was shot in the forehead by a pellet fired from an airgun. Another man was shot in the arm. Both men were taken to hospital. Thankfully, their injuries turned out not to be serious; but, as the police said afterwards, it was an incredibly reckless action.
	I do not knowno one can know at this stagewhether the measures in the Bill on air weapons would have covered that offence, related to it or helped in any way. It is too early to say; we do not know enough about the circumstances of the offence, but we clearly know that it was an attack against a public servant acting in his very important line of duty, protecting the publicsomeone who puts himself in the way of enough risk already, without being exposed to more by members of the public committing offences against him. Someone who goes out to work on behalf of the public should receive additional protection.
	Although some of the individual measures in the Bill may be worth while, I hope that during its consideration there will be an opportunity to consider giving much stronger protection to those who serve the public. Such measures would do far more to rebuild respect in our society, as well as doing justice to our public servants and giving them the protection that they deserve, than the measures that are currently in the Bill. Frankly, much more needs to be done by legislation and in many other ways. As we all know from our constituencies, and as the Prime Minister found out during the election campaign, there is a serious problem today with disorder, and we have not yet reached the right scale of dealing with that disorder to meet the needs of our constituents.

Sally Keeble: I join the tributes to the two hon. Members who made their maiden speeches. In particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Lynda Waltho) paid an elegant tribute to Debra Shipley, and I am sure that many hon. Members who have been friends with Debra very much appreciated her words.
	One reason why I particularly welcome the BillI take issue with the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) in this respectis that it deals with the type of violent crime that my constituents experience most and that causes them most concern. Mercifully, most of them are not the victims of some of the very serious crimes, such as murder, but many of them experience crimes that result from alcohol, or if they do not experience them, it is because they are frightened by them and keep out of the town centre. Tackling alcohol-related crime will have a huge impact on the quality of life of many of my constituents and, indeed, on the environment that they enjoy. I want to talk about the measures on binge drinking, but I also want to ask my right hon. Friend the Minister whether she might say something about so-called happy slapping. The Bill contains a measure about mobile phones, but it is very restricted and I want to ask her some questions about that.
	I shall deal first with binge drinking. I warmly welcome the proposals on alcohol disorder zones. I have been convinced of the need for such zones since going out on the beat with the Northamptonshire police in the town centre a good number of years ago, when I saw huge pressures on the police as a result of the weak management of late-night drinking in the town centre. One night, there were 13 or 14 arrests, which is probably the equivalent of a small riot, and young people suffered serious injuries. Of course, the town centre becomes a complete no-go area for anyone over the age of 25, in a family group or not either very drunk or interested in getting drunk.
	The issues that have arisen in many of our town centres have been caused by weak approaches by the drinks industry, sometimes a lack of thought in town-centre design by the local authoritymy hon. Friend referred to that in discussing her constituencyand, of course, the attitudes of young people to drink. Quite a few hon. Members mentioned the issue of fashion in crime. All those issues need to be tackled.
	On the drinks industry, a number of hon. Members talked about the state of the insides of venues and the fact that there is nothing to do other than stand up and drink. There is a lack of mix in entertainment and, in particular, a lack of food. Going around some of the venues that must make provision for eating as part of their licence, one commonly finds that the restaurant is shut for one reason or another. The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) talked about people standing and drinking. He struggled to think of what else they were doing and then said that they were enjoying themselves. In some venues, one wonders how much of what is going on is enjoyment and how much is just drinking for the sake of it.
	The management of young people by club staff is also a major issue. Young people go into such places, have as much alcohol poured down their throats as possible and are then chucked out on to the street, thereby creating an immediate problem that the police must deal with. It seems completely inappropriate that the police should have to manage that, which is one reason why alcohol disorder zones are so important.
	I take issue with hon. Members who have criticised the new licensing laws. Although I probably err on the side of wanting to see less drinking, the new licensing laws give local authorities more flexibility to think carefully about how they will stagger the opening and closing hours, thus raising issues that they have not considered before, such as the mix of business and how to provide licences.
	Roads and transport are also serious issues. I am pleased that the explanatory notes specifically mention the use of income from such zones for transport schemes, which will, of course, also have a major impact on improving public safety, given that drink-driving is a fairly logical consequence of too much drinking if there is no other form of transport.
	Alcohol has an impact on crime and several hon. Members have talked about its impact on policing. It leads to increased costs if policing is funded by overtime, while police resources are drained if that is managed by routine rostering. One often wonders why burglars do not wait until Friday and Saturday nights to operate because they know that all the police are safely in the town centre dealing with alcohol-related problems.

Stephen McCabe: Some of them do.

Sally Keeble: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right.
	We do not realise the profound impact of crime arising directly from the use of alcohol. The British crime survey produced a good special report on alcohol-related assaultsI am not sure whether that is the report to which several hon. Members have referred. The most recent figures, which are for 1999, projected that 1.2 million incidents had occurred, although not all were reported to the police. Although those incidents involved a small proportion of the population, the report showed some serious profiles.
	More than half the assaults left the victim with a form of injury. There was a strong link with age, with the group most at risk of assault being 16 to 19-year-olds. There was also a strong link with gender because some 90 per cent. of alcohol-related assaults were committed by men only. Five per cent. of assaults were committed by women and 5 per cent. by mixed groups. The biggest single group on which assaults were committed wasstrangers. About 320 alcohol-related assaults represented domestic violence, which is a major problem. Although men are more likely to be hit by a drunken stranger, women are twice as likely to be hit by a drunk whom they know. We must think about how we can cut violent crime, and especially domestic violence, by dealing with problems involved with drinking.
	When the Bill's provisions come into force, we must avoid the situation that occurred with antisocial behaviour orders when local authorities were slow to take up their powers. I hope that local authorities will be encouraged to take up the powers in the Bill to ensure that people can reclaim their town centres from the drinking venues and the behaviour that we have seen.
	I have written to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary about the problem of so-called happy slapping. I am worried about the way in which that horrible new craze of a crime is being treated, especially because of incidents that have been raised with me in my constituency. It is not the case that only young people and school kids are doing it, because there is evidence that older people are committing the offence to get pictures of children on their mobile phones. I wondered whether guidance can be issued so that such an action is treated as not only an assault, but a form of child abuse, which would mean that its seriousness could be reflected by the way in which it was treated by the police and the courts.
	I know that the matter does not lend itself immediately to legislation, but I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Security and Community Safety will say something about the way in which the offence should be treated. Unfortunately people abuse new technology in all sorts of extraordinary ways. It seems that the crime has come out of nowhere to become a problem not only in schools, but because older people are hitting children and compounding that by taking pictures of the incident, which I regard as a form of child abuse.
	The Bill will substantially improve many of my constituents' quality of life by dealing with crime, and especially crime involving 16 to 19-year-olds. It will do a lot to reduce some of the worst crimes experienced by women and make it possible for people like myself, who are no longer under 25, to take our families into town and enjoy a night out without having to worry about the behaviour that has unfortunately marred too many of our towns.

Lynne Featherstone: I give a general welcome to the Bill, but there is a lot of devil in the detail, so much careful work will be required in Committee. There seems to be consensus in the House about the problem, but not complete consensus about the cure proposed in the Bill.
	I have some concerns about drink banning orders because they will once again move the problem on instead of dealing with the cause. I would like a study of why people drink themselves silly on Friday and Saturday nights, as has been suggested.

Stephen Hesford: Does the hon. Lady accept that a historical reason why people drink themselves silly is last orders? They get drink down their necks at last orders before piling out on to the street, so one of the aims of the Licensing Act 2003 is to deal with that culture.

Lynne Featherstone: I accept that people drink themselves silly to get to last orders, but they also do so during happy hours, so the hon. Gentleman's point does not fully explain why that happens. There should be a pause for thought about 24-hour licensing, although the extension is a good idea for those who behave in a civilised manner. The hon. Gentleman's point does not address the reason why people drink themselves into oblivion early in the evening before continuing on their journey by going clubbing.

Diane Abbott: Does the hon. Lady agree that last orders is not the heart of the problem? There is something distinctive about the British drinking culture because the British go out to drink themselves into oblivion, while people of other countries and cultures drink more for pleasure.

Lynne Featherstone: I agree with the hon. Lady that there seems to be a British malaise. Additionally, people seem to have an inability to feel the cold when inebriated because they often go round in very little clothing at such times.
	I understand the idea behind alcohol disorder zones because Hornsey and Wood Green has good voluntary organisations called clubwatch and pubwatch that work together to create exactly what I think that the Government are after. I think that the Home Secretary misunderstood what I said before about this matter. I am worried that, although the law treats good and bad landlords differently, alcohol disorder zones will not do so. Although I agree with the principle that the polluter pays, the charge will be levied equally across the board. I wonder whether the local authority should be able to vary the levy according to the behaviour of individual landlords. Will the local authority be able to use the money for purposes such as cleansing, because males seem to have a technical problem when there is a lot of alcohol involved?
	I welcome the Government's proposals on imitation weapons, which are an abomination. I have served on the Metropolitan Police Authority for the past five years and visited SO19, where I saw a room containing a range of exact and precise imitations. No police officer should have to make a split-second decision about whether such weapons are genuine. The police have a training video that puts people in a crime scene so that they can make such a decision, but I would not know which way to choose, so I welcome the innovation.
	I questioned the Home Secretary earlier about why the Government propose to change the penalty for carrying an imitation firearm from six months to 12 months, because, unless that extra six months leads to a measurable difference, the proposal becomes gesture politics. Is that increase correct or should it be greater? The carrying of imitation weapons is serious, especially if they are used to frighten the public or commit robbery or crime, so we need to examine the matter more closely.
	There were three stabbings between 1 and 8 June in Hornsey and Wood Green and our neighbouring constituency of Tottenham. Although I understand the Government's desire to raise the minimum age at which knives can be sold, I am not sure that that is the cure. We must consider the parity between sentencing for knife and gun crime. I said in my recent maiden speech that guns and knives do not just blight lives, but end lives. There is a malaise among young people. Guns and knives are not simply fashion accessories, but status symbols. People in areas of London and parts of my constituency aspire to criminality. Although the Bill addresses the need to be tough on crime, what, to coin a phrase, about the causes?
	In summary, I admire the Government's attempt to send a cultural message to shift society, if that is what they are doing. Some of the great social shifts have been achieved as a result of legislation, such as the drink-driving laws and laws on wearing seat belts in cars. However, legislation was not enough on its own. It worked in conjunction with a huge effort on campaigning and advertising. I am old enough to remember Clunk-click every trip. It is unacceptable to get drunk in a pub and step into a car without people looking askance and I feel loose if I drive off without my seat belt on because using it is embedded in my behaviour.
	If the Government are sending a message that people drinking themselves into oblivion is wrong, there has to be an enormous campaign to back that up. One of the difficulties that they wander into is that too many laws and too many changes from what is a civil law to a criminal law mean that there are too many messages. They have to be clear, specific, targeted and focused on how they change society for the better. We are talking abut twin evils. They need addressing, which the Government are doing.
	Along with the Tory and Labour parties, I co-hosted a public discussion with the author Michael Jacobson, who has written a book on downsizing prisons. The basic thesis is that, as we reduce the prison population by finding other mechanisms for dealing with crimerehabilitation, justice panels and so onthe corresponding effect is that crime drops, which means that the prison population drops again. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) said that the Liberal Democrats were against the Anti-social Behaviour Bill. At the discussion, both Tory and Labour Members said how much we needed to deal with the causes of crime. We were attacked for saying that the best way to treat a woman for a first offence of shoplifting was not to put her in prison, but that is not being soft on crime.
	The Bill will reduce the number of incidents only temporarily if we do not deal with the causes. We are not soft on crime. We are tough on crime, but we are also interested in helping people. Tougher laws, more laws and longer sentences are a failure of the administration of justice. It is a cry for help from the people whom we represent to do more than just create additional laws.

Richard Burden: Every hon. Member has said that tackling violent crime and intimidatory antisocial behaviour is a priority for our constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Steve McCabe) was right when he said that people want to know not just that we are concerned about such things, but what we are going to do about them. The Bill is an important step along the road in tackling alcohol-related crime and antisocial behaviour.
	I want to address part 2. The link between replica firearms and violent crime is clear. The statistics have been mentioned and are widely available. We must tackle that problem and do something about replica firearms. Although the Bill will probably contribute to that, I share some of the concerns expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham). I hope that the Committee will consider the problems of definition, because they could give us problems. It is only right that the Bill covers possible exemptions, but jumping too far one way will drive a coach and horses through our legislation while jumping too far the other way will outlaw collectors' items. We need to consider that in detail.
	I want to concentrate on selling guns and knives. My hon. Friend made a good point about internet sales. I have concerns about holes in existing legislation and its implementation as it relates to existing retail outlets. According to the Knives Act 1997,
	A person is guilty of an offence if he markets a knife in a way which . . . indicates, or suggests, that it is suitable for combat; or . . . is otherwise likely to stimulate or encourage violent behaviour involving the use of the knife as a weapon.
	That is relatively clear. Looking at some of the retail outlets in my constituency and other places, however, I find it difficult to relate what is on sale, and how it is marketed and advertised, to that legislation.
	A market stall in my constituency is called Guns and Knives, and it is a bit like the ad that says It does what it says on the tin, because it has an array of everything from crossbows to ninja knives, to all kinds of blades and BB guns. Today it advertised an Uzi sub-machine gun at cut price, although I do not know whether it was a replica or BB gun. I am not suggesting that the retailer is breaking the law or selling knives to children. The evidence is that he is not. It is also true to say that he has signs up saying For collectors' use only.
	However, residents are concerned about how the products are marketed and the fact that they are in their face when they walk past the stall. In fact, they are so concerned that when the local Labour party organised a petition a month or two ago on the marketing of guns and knives in the open, people queued up to sign it. There was no doubt about the concern. I pay tribute to my constituent, Lucy Seymour-Smith, who brought the petition together and presented it to the local council, which is considering it. I am pleased to say that the local paper, the Birmingham Evening Mail, has taken up the problem and did a fairly major piece on the stall. It has raised some of the concerns felt by my constituents. The article brought out the suggestion that a blade from the stall was used in a violent incident not far from the constituency.
	There is a problem with how knives are marketed. Bearing in mind what the 1997 Act says about blades not being marketed in a way that suggests they are used for combat, it is significant that another shop in my constituency is called Combat. It sells things to do with legitimate martial artskendo and forms of unarmed martial artsbut there are also various forms weapons or imitation weapons in the window. I am not suggesting that the trader does not draw a distinction between selling equipment for kendo and having a Samurai sword purely for ceremonial purposes. Perhaps he does. If we are trying to counter the culture of violence, we need to be a lot firmer and more focused on breaking the link between legitimate martial arts and the glorification of violence that is all too often associated with the marketing of imitation guns, blades, crossbows and so on.
	Where blades are concerned, it is not just a case of new legislation; the issue is one of enforcement. However, retailers have a responsibility not simply to put up a sign saying For collectors' use only and then to market and advertise the items in a way that runs counter to the message that that sign gives. If they advertised their goods on television or in the press, they would be covered by an Advertising Standards Authority code of practice that would severely limit the way in which they did so. Yes, it is a system of self-regulation, but there are ASA rules. However, a retailer selling from a market stall or a shop can put what they want, how they want it, in their shop window as long as they can point to their sign saying For collectors' use only. They are under little obligation to adopt reasonable standards and to market their items in a way that indicates that they are for collectors' use, rather than in a way that glorifies violence. There is a link between the way in which such items are marketed and the culture of violence that can lead to people seeing guns or knives as attractive fashion accessories and, further down the line, to the committing of violent crimes.
	As well as giving the Bill its Second Reading and examining it in detail in Committee, I ask the House to think about how we can be more proactive about ensuring that the provisions of existing lawin particular the Knives Actare enforced. Ministers should also consider negotiating and drawing up with the retail trade a code of practice similar to the ones relating to print and electronic media, so that there is some oomph behind the legislation. In that way, police and trading standards officers will have an extra tool to use when they visit retail premises. We must have some means of ensuring that marketing to the legitimate collectorthe person who wants to have a ceremonial dagger on their wall, for exampleis not used as a cover for the glorification of violence and weapons.

David Gauke: I congratulate those hon. Members who have made their maiden speech today. The hon. Member for Stourbridge (Lynda Waltho) demonstrated an impressive love of her constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes) showed all the abilities of his two immediate predecessors, both of whom advanced swiftly to the Front Bench. I am sure that he will do the same. I note that, like many other members of the new intake of Conservative MPs, my hon. Friend referred to Sir John Betjeman: if many hon. Members in the next Parliament follow that example, in addition to a tribute to one's predecessors and a guide to one's constituency, a reference to Sir John Betjeman in a maiden speech will become one of the conventions of the House.
	This is not my maiden speech, but I shall say a word or two about my constituency. South-West Hertfordshire is a green and pleasant landa largely prosperous area containing a number of strong communities. Yet, like many other areas mentioned in today's debate, it suffers from violent crime and antisocial behaviour. This week, my local newspaper mentioned a mugging in Rickmansworth and a shooting in South Oxhey. This time last week, an incident occurred in the road where I live in Chorleywood, which was described as one of the happiest places in Britain only a year ago, but which suffers from antisocial behaviour.
	Often where antisocial behaviour is prevalent, a place feels no longer under the control of the authorities and violent crime can arise. My local newspaper also mentioned the neighbouring constituency, Watford, where violent crime increased by 38 per cent. on last year's figures. We have heard many references to statistics: the Government tend to refer to the British crime survey and Conservative Members to recorded crime figures, and conclusions differ according to which figures are used. However, the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) rightly said that there is among the public a perception and a real fear of violent crime and antisocial behaviourhence the Bill, no doubt.
	The Bill appears to me to comprise a modest set of proposals, to none of which I strongly object. Like many other hon. Members, I have been contacted by airsofters concerned about its impact, so I welcome the assurance that a way forward will be sought that accommodates concerns about replica weapons but maintains airsofting. Such an approach is desirable and I shall support those efforts. However, as I said, there is little in the Bill to which Conservative Members fundamentally object. There is great concern about drunken behaviour, which I see throughout my constituency, in Tring, Berkhamsted, Rickmansworth and Chorleywood. All suffer from that problem and, although I doubt that any of them would fall within an alcohol disorder zone, any measure that might change the culture relating to alcohol would be welcome.
	Considering the broader question of how to reduce violent crime, I do not believe that the Bill will make a substantial difference, and I doubt that many hon. Members think it will. Some of the offences will be useful for the authorities' efforts to assert law and order, but there is little that will be greatly helpful. If our aim is to reduce violent crime, we should be paying more attention to international comparisons, in particular the example of New York. During the 1990s, violent crime in New York fell by 60 per cent. and there are clear lessons for us to learn from that city and the policies followed there.
	First, we should implement a policy of high-visibility policing. That means reducing the bureaucracy with which the police have to deal, with the result that they spend a lot of time in the station. We also have to increase police numbers; that worked well in New York, which has much greater density of policing than a comparable city such as London. We should set out tough sanctions, whether imprisonment or some other measure. My local police are concerned that when youths are convicted of antisocial behaviour offences, nothing happens to them to prevent their going out and offending againindeed, their first experience of the criminal justice process emboldens them to commit further crimes, because they feel that the authorities can do nothing to them.
	We need more community policinga point on which there is consensus across the House. Calls for more community policing are not uniquely Conservative, but we need police who are known within their area and who have good contacts. They should be based there, and should not be hauled off to large cities or towns, as happens to the police in Berkhamsted and Tring, who are hauled off to Watford on Friday and Saturday evenings as a matter of course.
	How do we bring all those proposals together? There is a clear distinction to be made between arrangements in New York and in this country, where local accountability is entirely lacking. Police authorities are regarded as having little importance and are not thought to represent fully the views of local people. My constituents are frustrated that there is nothing that they can say or do to influence the police in their area. Rightly or wrongly, the police are often regarded as distant and out of touch. The people of Britain need greater control over the police in their locality, which is why many of us advocate the establishment of directly elected police commissioners or, to use a more catchy word, sheriffs. The police need to be in contact with the communities that they serve, but at the moment there is distance between the people and the police, who do not necessarily respond to ordinary people's priorities. Giving them another piece of legislation with which to enforce their presence may be helpful, but until we change fundamentally the culture of our criminal justice system to make it more responsive to local public opinion I fear that we will continue to face violent crime at record levels.

Diane Abbott: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate. I should like to focus on the issue of gun crime and the steps in the Bill that, I hope, will help us to tackle that scourge. As I said in an intervention, gun crime casts a peculiar shadow over communities such as mine in Hackney. I remind the House that when those of us who live in the inner city talk about gun crime we are talking about something very different from the criminal use of guns down the ages. Guns have always been used in crime, including, for example, the great train robbery. In the past decade in inner-city Hackney, however, I have witnessed the growth of a specific gun culture, in which young men do not feel properly dressed for a night out unless they are tooled up.
	People may talk about guns as replicas or collectors' items, but individuals who want guns as ornaments on their dining-room table or on their walls are feeding the gun culture. Another feature of Hackney's gun culture is the random nature of shootings. Once, unless people were armed robbers or security guards, they were unlikely ever to find themselves face-to-face with a gun, but in my constituency there have been drive-by shootings in which people were killed while waiting at a bus stop. At a party, people have been killed by a bullet from a gun fired in another room that passed through the wall. In the past two weeks, people were shot up in a Turkish restaurant in Dalston by people travelling past on a motorbike. Imagine the terror experienced by people in a restaurant, at a bus stop or walking up the street when they see two guys go past on a motorbike spraying bullets.
	The random nature of gun crime in the city and its international nature give Hackney's gun culture a specific character. Disputes about drugs and payment may originate in Mountain View, Kingston in Jamaica but they are resolved on the streets of Dalston in Hackney. Just as business and labour have gone global, so has crime. Hackney is involved in the traffic of criminals between New York, London, Jamaica and elsewhere. There is therefore a distinct and unnerving phenomenon in an area where high-value housing lies cheek by jowl with what is commonly known as murder mile. For many years, I have urged Ministers to take tough action on imitation firearms. In Hackney, such firearms are not ornaments like vases or a piece of china. They are one step away from real firearms. The majority of what are misleadingly described as Yardie-type shootings in Londonmost of those involved do not come from Jamaica or have not travelled thereare perpetrated with activated imitation firearms. That is why I take a tougher line than colleagues who regard such guns merely as ornaments.
	The problem is not just a media scare. The publication of annual crime figures show that gun crime has risen by 10 per cent. and the use of imitation weapons by 66 per cent. Last Monday, a 22-year-old was shot in Dalston, and he is still in hospital. In the past 10 days, a 20-year-old who was trying to stop a friend being beaten up was shot in the face. As I said, bullets were sprayed into a Turkish restaurant by a gunman on a motorcycle in Dalston. Gun crime is a tragedy not just for the people who are shot but for their family and the community. What can it be like to be a mother who says goodbye to her son in the morning or the afternoon only to receive a call from the police saying he has been shot and may be dying?
	I welcome the Government's action, including tougher sentences for people carrying imitation firearms. I particularly welcome the creation of a new offence for using other people to hide and carry guns or knives. For many years in Hackney, 11, 12 or 13-year-old children have been used to keep guns, because the owners know that when those children are discovered they will not receive the sentences given to adults. The Bill's clear intention to bear down on the carrying, sale and use of imitation firearms is welcome, and my constituents will be grateful that the Government are listening.
	We must make it clear, however, that the glorification of guns and firearms is not unique to youth culture or even black youth culture. Recently, promotions for the film Mr.  Mrs. Smith featured the gimmick of a glamorous coupleBrad Pitt and Angelina Joliehandling guns. Sometimes people assume that gun culture is specific to inner-city areas such as my constituency, but guns have been glorified in American culture since the days of Wyatt Earp. I welcome the measures in the Bill on imitation weapons, for which the police have been calling for many years. I do not want those measures to be watered down by people who consider such guns to be merely ornaments.
	Measures in the Bill, however, will not wipe out the menace of gun crime in the inner city. We need to look at a number of underlying issues, including education. I have spoken many times in the House about the underachievement of black boys. I am not claiming that every child who underachieves at school joins a criminal subculture and goes on to become involved in firearms, but there is a direct link between criminality, whatever one's colour, and underachievement. If we are serious about beating gun culture in the Hackneys and Harlesdens of our country we must look at educational underachievement and the need to create routes into employment. Someone can stand in the middle of Dalston in my constituency a few hundred yards from the scene of various shooting incidents and see the towers of the City of London, including the gherkin and the NatWest tower. For most of my young male constituents, however, those towers might as well be on the other side of the world, so remote is their opportunity to find a job in the City, one of the biggest employers in Europe.
	We must therefore look at education and routes into employment for my constituents. We must also look at witness protection. In HackneyI do not know about areas outside the M25by and large the identity of individuals carrying out the shootings is not a mystery. The gangs and perpetrators are well known within their communities. The problem is that people are terrified to come forward because we still do not have adequate witness protection. If there is a big gangland investigation, people can have their identity changed or whatever, but I have spoken to middle-aged ladies who have gone to court and been witnesses in the trials of gun criminals and have had to move two or three times to get away from the fear of retribution. Witness protection is extremely important.
	We also need to look at better control of the illegal importation of weapons and at the issues that colleagues have raised in relation to the sale of weapons on the internet. Of course we do not have anything like the level of gun crime that exists in the United States, and of course only a fraction of our young people are involved in the kind of gun culture that I described, yet that has cast a terrible shadow over my constituents because of its random, international and cultural nature. I am glad that in the Bill the Government are taking important steps towards dealing finally with the menace of gun crime in our inner-city communities.

Elfyn Llwyd: I compliment the hon. Members for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes) and for Stourbridge (Lynda Waltho) on their excellent maiden speeches.
	Here we have the 41st or 42nd Home Office Bill in the history of this Government. Once again, I am afraid, the most effective part of the Bill is the title, which bears little relation to the contents. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) said earlier that if existing legislation with regard to knives were put into effect properly, we would not need any reference to knives in the Bill. However, I welcome part 2.

Richard Burden: With respect, I did not make the comment that the hon. Gentleman attributes to me. The point that I was making was that there is existing legislation on knives which needs to be enforced properly. I did not say that we do not need the provisions of the Bill.

Elfyn Llwyd: I apologise if I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman. I accept what he says, of course.
	The offence of minding a weapon is an excellent step forward. From my experience of the courts, it has been needed for some time. The Government have got that right. The provisions on firing beyond premises are also right. I welcome the provisions on imitation weapons, a subject on which I have campaigned long and hard. I am pleased that something is being done. With regard to airguns, a licensing system would have been preferable. Those can be extremely dangerous, and we know that the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, for example, reports many garden birds being killed year on year. There are also several examples of domestic animals being shot with airguns. The Government have rejected the idea of licensing, but in the spirit of the Home Secretary's opening remarks, I hope that there can be a dialogue on the matter in Committee and further consideration of the matter.

Michael Weir: My hon. Friend will know that in Scotland there is a great deal of cross-party consensus on the need for tighter legislation going beyond the Bill. That was supported by the First Minister before he was slapped down by the Home Secretary. Given that consensus, does my hon. Friend agree that there is an opportunity to trial a licensing scheme in Scotland?

Elfyn Llwyd: Definitely. Clearly, if such a scheme works in Scotland, it can be emulated south of the border and in Wales and introduced as best practice. I hope there will be a dialogue on the subject.
	On knives, I do not know whether raising the legal age for buying a knife will be a great step forward. We shall have to wait and see.
	What causes me greatest concern is the various provisions concerning drunkenness. I am the first to admit that there is a problem; I would be foolish to deny it. We know that in 200203 44 per cent. of violent offences were committed by people who were drunk. However, we are still shy of examining the causes. I have said many times before and I will say again that drinks companies market alcopops to youngsters. Youngsters enjoy themselves, and why not? They drink the stuff and within a short time get terribly drunk. The problems follow from there.
	That is not the responsible sale of alcohol. I do not believe that it is right to leave the Portman Group in charge of operations in that regard. At some point some form of legislation will be needed. I do not want to prevent youngsters enjoying themselves, but the vast majority of young people in our town centres are probably far more drunk than they want to be, because alcopops are so easy to drink.
	I note that the Bill deals with another hobbyhorse of minethe existing offence of selling alcohol to a person who is drunk, and an increase in the fine. Good. Let us hope that from now on the provision will be enforced, which has not been the case up till now.
	Let us consider the existing provisions on drunkenness. It is an offence to be drunk and disorderly. Dispersal orders were provided for under the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003. The Crime and Disorder Act1998 introduced antisocial behaviour orders. Community or suspended sentences may have an exclusion requirement among their conditions. If all those were properly used, would we need a drink banning order? We often speak about legislating when there is not strictly a need for it. No doubt I will be corrected if I am wrong, but I pose the question whether there is a need for further legislation. If we are to ratchet up the penalties for public drunkenness, there must be a real need for it. We should not find a need simply because we are not enforcing the existing law.
	I am sure there is a need for alcohol disorder zones, but I hope the provision will not be used as a blunt instrument. The British Beer and Pub Association is extremely concernedit would be, wouldn't itabout the provision. I believe that the polluter pays principle is fine, but many responsible licensees will be tarred with the same brush as those who are not. I am not sure that that is acceptable. There is an argument that there are already plenty of laws in place to achieve the desired aim. The problem may be that there are not enough police officers out on the streets. We heard earlier that police were called from one place to another on a Friday or Saturday night. Maybe the answer is more policemen on the streets.
	I would be wary of declaring a city centre to be an alcohol disorder zone, thereby blackening the reputation of that city centre in toto and tarring responsible businesses with the same brush. The Association of Chief Police Officers is worried and stated in its evidence that the zones may well be a problem because of the links between longer drinking hours and yob behaviour, the cost to the taxpayer and the fact that more officers would spend time in court rather than crime-fighting. ACPO also says that the zones will
	allow the police and local authorities to take action against pubs and clubs whose customers cause problems after closing time.
	That is fine. However, the ACPO document makes it clear
	that the police have serious doubts about whether the proposals will prove effective. ACPO is concerned that the proposed zones will be routinely challenged through the courts at considerable cost to the public sector, in terms of time and money.
	ACPO goes on to warn:
	Defending our position in the courts diverts our resources away from where they should be and does little in the meantime to reduce crime, disorder and anti-social behaviour.
	The Local Government Association welcomes the opportunity to consider the provision and points out that it deals with a sensitive matter. I hope it will be used sensitively, with the caveats that I have mentioned.
	I was not in favour of the introduction of ASBOs, because I thought that they were a blunt instrument, but, to the Government's credit, they are working in some areas. ASBOs are most effective when stages 1, 2 and 3 of the process are used in partnership, and north Wales is a beacon of good practice in that regard. The fact that fewer ASBOs are used in north Wales does not mean that North Wales police has failed. North Wales police has succeeded because such matters are being dealt with at stages 1, 2 and 3 rather than at stage 5, which involves applying for an ASBO. I hope that that sensitive, thinking attitude is adopted on alcohol zones, too.
	The Local Government Association has raised the concern that the name should be changed to alcohol management zone, which would be more salubrious and less offensive to the good people who live and work within a particular zone. Zones are necessary, but the requirement for them would decrease if we were able to secure more police on the streets. The Home Affairs Committee has considerable reservations about the zones. Although it accepts in principle that clubs and pubs should contribute more to the cost of disorder, it is concerned about proposals in the Bill that may be difficult to operate. Those proposals rest on the premise that individual licensed premises must be at fault for surrounding disorder, which cannot be right. As I have said, the matter must be dealt with sensitively.
	There is room for dispersal orders, provided that they are used sensitively, but Liberty is concerned that the police will be both judge and jury in their own court, which might have unfortunate consequences for a person who is effectively banned without any real recourse to the law. The existing offences relating to public order and drunkenness are adequate to deal with those matters. The Bill introduces an offence that may not be necessary, but if it is necessary, I hope that it is employed rarely, sensitively and properly. I have nothing but faith in the police, but it is always dangerous to put a police officer in a position in which they make a judgment whether a certain course of action is right or wrong.
	Parts of the Bill commend themselves to the House, but large parts of it would beto use a parliamentary wordotiose, if we used the existing legislation and spent more on putting more police officers on the street.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. As a significant number of Members are still seeking to catch my eye, in accordance with the order of the House of 26 October on shorter speeches, Mr. Speaker has decided that between 8.30 and 9.30 pm, a six-minute time limit will apply. I intend to call the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) next, who will not be subject to that restriction, which will apply after she sits down. I remind the House that in the period of shorter speeches, no added time is allowed for interventions.

Helen Jones: It is a great pleasure to follow the two hon. Members who have made their maiden speeches tonight. It is also a great pleasure to support this Bill, and in particular the clauses that deal with alcohol-related crime and antisocial behaviour, which I have raised previously in this House and which are matters of great concern to my constituents.
	I want to address the civil liberties elements of the Bill, which have been discussed by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) and a number of pressure groups. The hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) also said that he wants to examine the civil liberties elements of the Bill. He is right to do so, because our civil liberties are vital and precious, but that includes victims' civil liberties, too. When I hear some pressure groups and think tanks discuss such issues, I wonder whether their members have ever visited some of our towns at weekends or whether they have ever seen what happens on some of our big estates.
	The Bill protects the civil liberties of people such as the pensioner in my constituency whose life was made a misery by young thugs tanked up on alcohol and who has the right to enjoyment in his own home. It also protects the vast majority of young people who want to go out in the evening without being hassled or attacked by idiots who have had more drink than they can handle, so we must consider their civil liberties, too.
	Like many other towns, Warrington has experienced serious problems in its town centre with people drinking to excess. I commend the police and the local council on the steps that they have taken to tackle that problem, such as high-profile policing and arranging better public transport at night.
	The drinking banning orders and the alcohol disorder zones will be vital in the future, not least because the only way in which to convince licensees to abandon the drinks promotions and happy hours that fuel binge drinking is to make them pay for the resulting disorder, because I regret to say that persuasion has not had much effect, so far.
	Many problems in my constituency are caused not by pubs and clubs, but by young people who obtain alcohol from off-licences. I am pleased to see that the Bill contains penalties for persistently selling alcohol to a minor. As I have said to the Home Secretary, however, we must examine the penalties for buying alcohol for a minor. I have had many discussions with the police and trading standards officers in my constituency, and, by and large, our problem is not retailers selling to minors, although that happens. The problem is people who go into off-licences to buy goods for young people, usually for a share of what they buy.
	We must also tackle the promotion of alcoholic drinks that are deliberately aimed at young people, which is an issue that the Bill does not cover. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy is a bit out of date, because the key issue is not alcopops, but strong ciders. It is clear that drinks with names such as Zeppelin and White Lightning are deliberately targeted at youngsters. Another such drink is called Frosty Jackit is a strong cider; it is 8 per cent. proof and you can buy a 3 litre bottle for 1.99. It contains 22.5 units of alcohol, which is more than is recommended for average adult male in a week, and it is drunk by kids on the streets and in the playing fields of my constituency and other constituencies like it.
	Although the suspension of licences and closure orders are welcome, they are not enough. We must act to tackle the marketing of alcohol to the young and those adults who are complicit in antisocial behaviour by buying supplies for young people.
	I hope that Home Office Ministers will discuss with other Departments the increasing sale of smuggled alcohol, which is another issue not mentioned in the Bill. Trading standards officers have also told me that counterfeit products are sold on the estates, and such products are important because they lower the cost of getting drunk. People go round taking orders and delivering those goods, and we must convince the public that alcohol smuggling is not a victim-free crime and that it contributes to disorder on our streets.
	Another issue that I should like to raise is that of resources. The Bill imposes extra duties on police and trading standards officers. While I hope that it will ultimately reduce the disorder that the police have to cope with, there is a great deal of work in it for trading standards officers, too, in dealing with the sale of alcohol, airguns and imitation firearms. Although I have a very high regard for trading standards officers in my area, they are woefully under-resourced. I hope that Home Office Ministers will discuss with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister ways in which resources can be made available to ensure that the provisions in the Bill are implemented. Bringing in laws that cannot be implemented on the ground destroys people's faith in the system, and we need to ensure that that does not happen.
	The Bill tackles the immediate problems of alcohol and binge drinking, but not their long-term causes. I hope that at some point we will have an opportunity to debate on the Floor of the House why so many people, particularly younger people, behave in this way. We hear a lot about the need for respect, but we should turn that question on its head and ask where we have gone wrong, as adults, in the society that we have created and for which we are ultimately responsible. If we allow our young people to be exposed to a culture in which they are told that they can instantly have everything that they want, we should not be surprised when some of them grow up to disregard the effect of their behaviour on other people. We must talk far more about how we invest in our young people, support their families, and give them worthwhile activities. The Government have already taken steps in that direction with programmes such as Sure Start and extended schools, but we need to do much more. We need the thorough review of the youth service that we have been promised for so long so that we can put in place not only worthwhile activities for young people but other activities that engage them in the community and allow them to interact with and contribute to it.
	One of the worst things that we can do when we talk about such issues is to stigmatise all our young people because of the actions of a few. Having spoken about young people, I want to put on the record, as the mother of a teenager, that most of the young people I meet are decent, well meaning and well behaved. Sometimes they are noisy; if children are not noisy, they are ill. Sometimes they do not think of the effect of their behaviour on other people and have to be taught proper consideration for others. That is not criminality, but a normal part of growing up; we should not confuse the two.
	I welcome the Bill. I hope that we will see it as part of a package by which we not only tackle the problems that we face but look at their longer-term causes. We must put in place a system whereby our young people have more on offer than binge drinking. They need to be able to contribute to society, and we need to see them not as a problem but as the future of our societyonly in that way will we ultimately succeed.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members that the time limit on Back-Bench speeches is now six minutes.

Jeremy Wright: I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) said. I add my congratulations to Members who have made their maiden speeches todaymy hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes), with whom I share a profession in the criminal law, and the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Lynda Waltho), on behalf of whose constituents I have, sadly, often practised that profession.
	I welcome a great deal of the Bill, particularly its focus on alcohol-related disorder, which, as many hon. Members said, is a problem in many parts of the countrynot only in cities but in smaller towns such as those that I represent. Like many hon. Members, I have seen for myself the effects of such disorder. With the night shift of Rugby police, I have watched, with, I suppose, hope and despair in equal measure, the behaviour of young people who go out specifically with the intention of getting drunk and thereafter causing troublealthough of course I agree with the hon. Member for Warrington, North that such young people are merely a minority. I have also watched the compassion and unfailing politeness of highly professional police officers who then have to deal with those problems. Of course, there are wider costs, not only economic but social, which have also been discussed. In our town centresI include Rugbywe begin to witness a cycle of despair whereby those who are out simply for a good time leave the town centres to those who cause trouble. That leaves a vacuum to be filled by yet more of those who are out to cause trouble. I hope that the Bill will begin to deal with that problem.
	In that context, perhaps alcohol disorder zones are the Bill's most significant proposal. My only concern is that perhaps we view the matter too narrowly. Of course, it is correct that a great deal of alcohol-related disorder happens just outside the pubs and clubs but we all know that it spills into residential areas that are slightly further afield. We all receive many letters from constituents, as I did only this morning, who live in residential areas not too far away from the town centres and find that people who drink too much and cause trouble make their lives a misery in the middle of the night. We must therefore consider ways in which to deal with alcohol-related disorder not only in the alcohol disorder zones but outside them.
	It is important to consider those who sell alcohol to children, not only the licensees of public houses and clubs but those who sell from off-licences. In my constituency, there is a serious problem in the town of Kenilworth with one particular licensee, who regularly sells to minors whom he knows, so test purchases do not work. Those minors, fuelled by the alcohol that he has sold them, go on to cause trouble in public areas and private streets. Perhaps Ministers would like to examine that problem more carefully.
	The Home Secretary batted away a point that I raised earlier but I hope that other Ministers will consider it. We must think about the resources that we provide to our police officers to fulfil the obligations that the Bill imposes on them. We must remember that police officers are overworked, overburdened with paperwork and do not have the time to deal with an arsenal of further obligations. I am all in favour of extra orders and extra measures that give the police and the courts the power to deal with those who cause alcohol-related disorder but there is no point in adding more and more orders and more and more measures to the arsenal of the police if they do not have the manpower, resources or time to make good use of them. I urge Ministers to consider that and I hope that the Bill can be further improved.

Jeff Ennis: Like most hon. Members, I support many if not all the Bill's provisions. There is some consensus among all the parties on the measure. I support the stronger new powers to deal with drunk and violent criminals and ensure that pubs and bars sell alcohol responsibly.
	I want to concentrate on the provisions that specifically refer to airguns. As the Minister knows, I have taken a great personal interest in the matter since January 1999, when 10-year-old Adam Yoxall was blinded in one eye by an airgun pellet in Grimethorpe in my constituency. My first Adjournment debate on 23 June 1999 was on that subject. Since then, I have tabled several early-day motions on the matter. I fully endorse all the provisions on airguns and replica guns. However, I wonder if the Government will consider going a little further.
	The Secretary of State said in his opening remarks that he had held discussions with many agencies, including the Gun Control Network. In the past few months, two boys lost their lives in airgun incidents, including Alex Cole from Conisbrough near Doncaster, which is close to my constituency. Many other victims of airgun attacks have been lucky to escape without serious injury. The Gun Control Network advocates a licensing system, which has exercised the minds of hon. Members of all parties. I share the interest in the licensing system, especially in light of the fact that the Scottish First Minister is considering introducing such a system. I hope that we can explore the matter further in Committee.
	I realise that there are many pitfalls involved in introducing a licensing scheme for airguns. There are already between 4 million and 7 million airguns in circulation, and most do not have a unique serial number. Perhaps ensuring that they did have such a number would be a move in the right direction. We might also want to consider restricting the sale of airguns to authorised dealers, which would have the distinct advantage of reducing the number of outlets for such weapons. Members have already mentioned the problems relating to internet and mail order sales of air weapons. It is far too easy to buy weapons on the internet. I know that this is a difficult issue, but we must consider it very seriously in relation to restricting future sales.
	I understand that, under the present powers of confiscation, the courts have the power to confiscate air weapons on the recommendation of the police. Might we, however, consider giving the power of confiscation to the police in their own right? We ought seriously to consider such a measure in Committee.
	I should like to highlight two further points on airgun safety that I mentioned in my Adjournment debate in June 1999. They relate to the two Es: enforcement and education. I fully support the move to raise the minimum age for purchasing an airgun to 18, but an even greater impact on airgun safety would be achieved by having better enforcement by the police to cut down on the level of abuse and misuse of airguns. The practical problem related to better enforcement is that many incidents involve very young children. In many cases, the incidents are also first offences. We need to focus on the fact that the penalties imposed on those children are often very light, perhaps involving no more than a caution.
	Better education is essential if parents and children are to realise that airguns are not toys but potentially lethal weapons, and that they need to be treated as such. Parents must ensure that airguns are kept securely, and never in a place that could be accessible to young children. This has been an excellent debate, and I hope that the Bill's Second Reading will be uncontested tonight.

Tobias Ellwood: It is clear from many of the contributions from both sides of the House that this is an important subject. That is certainly reflected in the feedback that we are getting from the public, whether on policing, binge drinking, the trafficking and use of drugs, or the sale and use of hand weapons.
	It was interesting to hear how all the parties laid out their stalls during the election, making major promises to tackle the growth in violent crime. The public are certainly right to be concerned. Let us take my constituency as a yardstick. In 200001, there were 1,402 violent crimes recorded there. That figure has now doubled to 3,257, which is a worrying change in three years. This is now a major issue that affects more people in our communities, town centres and schools. After all the debates during the general election and all the promises that were made, there is disappointment that this flagship Bill to challenge the rise in violent crime has failed to meet expectations.
	We should not dismiss the many good parts of the Bill. They were well covered by other hon. Members and I shall not allude to them further owing to time restrictions. However, the Bill fails to go to the heart of the problem. Why, for example, does a pupil feel the need to take a weapon into school in the first place? Why do young menand, indeed, young womendrink as much as possible in the shortest possible time on Friday and Saturday nights? How can police resources be strengthened to cope with the challenges of the night-time economy?
	The Government should look more at the causes of crime and less at the punishment. The Bill arguably focuses on the challenges created by a younger age group in society, namely violence in schools and binge drinking. All those issues together reflect a cultural change in society that requires more than a sticking-plaster approach to solving the problem. We need an in-depth, concerted attack on what unites all these issues: a growing lack of respect for our community, our laws, our rules and our values, and for those who enforce them, whether they be police, teachers or even parents.
	I want to focus on the part of the Bill that deals with binge drinking, which is a huge issue in Bournemouth, although it is clear from what we have heard today that it is a problem throughout the nation. Unfortunately, the limited power of councils prevents the growth of pubs and clubs, which encourages the drinking culture. Hogarth's picture Gin Lane is re-created on every town centre CCTV monitor on Friday and Saturday nights as lads and ladettes stagger and stumble on the pavements and roads, threatening the world around them as the alcohol blurs their judgment, turning a truck driver, a postman or a banker by day into an ill-tempered, aggressive, irrational and often tribal animal by night.
	Local residentscertainly in Bournemouthare deterred from visiting the town centre. Almost half the police on duty are deployed to an area measuring a quarter of a square mile where the pubs and clubs are located. Police concentrate on maintaining law and order in the heart of the town, and the rest is not given the coverage that it deserves.
	The Bill covers many issues connected with binge drinking, but it will need considerable scrutiny in Committee. The imposition of a drink banning order on individuals would have limited effect, as most drinkerscertainly in Bournemouthtend to be visitors or revellers. Following a banning order, they would simply move somewhere else. The same applies to spot bans on troublemakers. As for closing licensed premises, who would police it? Premises are not checked thoroughly enough as it is. The setting up of alcohol disorder zones would take 28 days, during which time the cause of concern might have moved. Moreover, it would label the area and other, well-run, restaurants and pubs might be caught in the zone and given a bad name. I shall not cite the two examples in the explanatory notes, but Members should look at them. We should be acting now, rather than waiting for another Bill.
	The hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) spoke of enabling councils to impose a levy on pubs and clubs. I think that, rather than an area being labelled, councils should have that power. The extra police required for big football matches are not paid for by the taxpayer but from ticket salesin other words, by those attending the matches. The same principle should apply to pubs and clubs.
	Despite being described as a flagship Bill intended to make our communities safer, the Bill fails to deal with important election issues. There is no mention of simplifying police paperwork, strengthening the role of special constables or giving councillors powers to limit the number of clubs in an areaor, indeed, giving them a say in how the community grows. The Bill does not challenge the drinks industry's approach to drinks promotion. It does not suggest giving the specials a salary, which would be a commendable way of increasing the number of people who join the specials rather than becoming community support officers.
	It is easy to see what the Bill will do, but it will not challenge or reduce the amount of violent crime, and it will not deal with the very British problem of binge drinking.

Kevan Jones: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Lynda Waltho) and the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes) on their maiden speeches. Let me also say how pleased I was to note that the soft-on-crime, criminal-friendly wing of the Liberal Democrats has a champion in the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone).
	I welcome the Bill. I shall concentrate on two aspects. I particularly applaud clause 27, which makes it an offence to fire an air pellet beyond the boundaries of a property. That is also welcomed by my constituent Ms Rachel Fernie of Chester Moor, who contacted me recently about a group of youths who were using her land to fire rifles and, in one particularly nasty incident, seriously injured her neighbour's cat. Such irresponsible behaviour, often leading to the injury and even death of pets and wildlife, must be stamped out.
	In addition, I welcome the provision to increase the age at which someone may acquire or possess an airweapon without supervision from 17 to 18. I congratulate the Evening Chronicle in Newcastle on its campaign to restrict the use of air weapons following the tragic case of 16-year-old Nicola Diston, who lost sight in one eye after being hit by an airgun pellet. The newspaper presented a petition signed by some 21,000 readers to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) when he was Home Secretary. Those readers will be pleased with the Bill. It would be remiss of me not to pay tribute to the former Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West, Joyce Quin, who did a tremendous amount of work in raising the issue in the House.
	I turn to the part of the Bill that deals with the reprogramming of mobile phones. Right hon. and hon. Members may be aware that, in the previous Parliament, I was drawn sixth in the private Member's ballot, a feat that I managed two years runningit is either a bonus or a burden, depending on one's point of view. I introduced a Bill to amend the Mobile Telephones (Re-programming) Act 2002. Unfortunately, due to the general election, it ran out of parliamentary time. I am pleased that its provisions are incorporated in this Bill. I am sure that it will receive cross-party support. Early-day motion 601, which I tabled in the previous Parliament, received support from over 100 Members on both sides of the House.
	Tackling mobile phone theft is key to reducing street crime. Mobile phones are taken in half of all robberies. In 30 per cent. of robberies, they are the only item stolen. Victims are targeted for their mobile phones, which are then sold or used in a lot of illegal drugs sales.
	Mobile phone theft is a particular problem for the young. More than half of phone robbery victims are under 18 and more than half the offenders are aged between 15 and 17. Such crimes can have tragic results, as was demonstrated in June 2004 with the killing of Kieran Rodney-Davis in Fulham.
	The Bill will reduce the ability to sell on mobile phones. I congratulate the industry on setting up the database in 2002 that allows phones that are reported as lost or stolen to be blocked across the United Kingdom, so that the network can no longer be used, and on its national campaign to tell the public that stolen mobiles can be made useless by reporting the theft to the network provider.
	The Bill will close a loophole in the 2002 Act. In effect, it will make it an offence to offer or to agree to reprogramme a mobile phone or to have a mobile phone reprogrammed. Introducing that offence brings the legislation into line with drug dealing legislation, under which it is an offence to offer to supply a controlled drug. It will enable the police to clamp down on reprogrammers and disrupt what is a lucrative market.
	In short, I believe that those measures will lead to more people being brought before the courts for the offence of reprogramming. They are not controversial but they will make a real difference to street crime. Added to the tough measures in the Bill, we can be proud that we have a Government who will ensure that the criminals are not the ones who benefit and that victims have a voice at last.

Christopher Fraser: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes), who made a fine maiden speech, and the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Lynda Waltho) on her maiden speech.
	Much in the Bill deserves to be looked at carefully, whether one represents an urban constituency or, as I do, a rural one. We all desire a crackdown on gun culture, binge drinking and the rising tide of violent crime, but we cannot forget the context of the Bill, which is the Government's failure to deal with violent crime, gun culture in our towns and cities, knife crime, drugs, the importation of illegal weapons and the mayhem caused by binge drinking.
	On violent crime, the simple fact is that people in my part of Norfolk are just like others across the country: they will need a lot of convincing that the measures in the Bill will make a difference. We must not forget that 1.1 million violent crimes were committed last year across England and Wales and that recorded crime has risen by more than 800,000 from 199899. Recent crime figures show increases in violent crime in Norfolk above the national average, which should be of concern to the Home Secretary, who is also a Norfolk Member. Violent crime in my area has risen by 14 per cent. in the last year. My constituents and all law-abiding people desire to feel safe and secure in their homes, communities and streets.
	The fact that mine is a rural constituency means that it has its particular problems. We all remember the case of Tony Martin, who lives in west Norfolk, and who shot a burglar entering his property. Members will recall that that case revealed the fear and anxiety of the rural population in areas where the police presence is too thinly spread. My constituents do not want headline-grabbing initiatives from the Home Office and they can only hope that the Bill will have an impact that previous Home Office policies have not had. For example, I should like to ask the Minister, while she is guffawing on the Front Bench, how many child curfew schemes have been established since 1998? What proportion of fixed penalty notices for disorder have been paid within the required period? What proportion of antisocial behaviour orders have been breached?
	The success of the Bill is not dependent on whether it makes headlines but on whether it tackles violent crime at its source, by which I mean particularly guns and binge drinking.
	Like all Members of Parliament, I believe that there should be a crackdown on gun crime but the Government's record is poor. Firearms offences in England and Wales have risen every year since 1997 and, by 200203, there were over 24,000 such offences, more than double the number in 1997. A gun crime is committed every hour and it is no surprise that successive Home Secretaries have convened umpteen summits on the issue. We want action, not talk. Guns, drugs and violent crime are intimately linked. If we make an impact on one, we must make an impact on them all.
	I wish to put on record my concerns about shooting associations. I am sure that I am not alone in saying that I have received many letters and comments from constituents about this part of the Bill. In dealing with the real problem of gun crime, we must not end up penalising the law-abiding majority of people who go about their business of legal shooting. Lawful shooting is an essential part of many areas of rural life and the rural economy and I want to be sure that the Bill, while its motives are well intentioned, will not prejudice the interests of constituents in that respect.
	Finally, I turn to binge drinking, which is a serious problem. The British crime survey showed that the number of people worried about people being drunk or rowdy in public areas is up by 10 per cent. on last year, despite the Government's various crackdowns on alcohol-related violence. Half of all violent attacks are alcohol-related and the cost to the taxpayer of alcohol-fuelled crime is 12 billion a year.
	This Bill has a lot of initiatives but I have grave concerns about the Government's new licensing regime, which threatens a reckless surge in late licensing and, in turn, alcohol-fuelled violence and yobbish behaviour. The Bill has made headlines, but it remains to be seen whether it will work in the face of the Government's rushed 24-hour drinking initiatives. If this Bill is to have any impact, it must be true to its title and reduce crime on the ground. My constituents need that, as do others, and they deserve it after eight years of the Government not addressing the problems.

David Kidney: I want to focus on alcohol and on some of the work being done in Stafford. The backdrop is Staffordshire police reporting an 8 per cent. fall in crime overall this year, which is the latest in a series of consecutive falls. House burglaries are down by 24 per cent., vehicle crime by 18 per cent. and robbery by 27 per cent., but violent crime is up by 4 per cent.
	It is also important to see the Bill in context. We now have an alcohol harm reduction strategy and the Licensing Act 2003 is about to come into force. It gives more powers to the police and more rights to local communities, and public safety is at the heart of its four licensing objectives. We in Stafford have already made use of previous Labour legislation in this regard. An order designates the town centre as an area in which people may not drink alcohol in public and a further order provides for the dispersal from the town centre of those engaged in disorderly conduct.
	The police and the council have already taken a professional approach to managing so-called binge drinking in Stafford town centre, and they are not alone. Our licensees, led by Chris Lewis of the Swan hotel, have come together in a very strong pubwatch. Licensees in Stafford are given radios that provide a direct link to the police, community support officers and the closed circuit television control centre, so that when one is alerted, everybody is alerted. We are already using effectively everything at our disposal and, when drinking banning orders come into force, they will be a useful complement to existing practice in Stafford. The overriding aim of our pubwatch group is, Banned from one, banned from all. Once it is possible to obtain court orders, they will reinforce the voluntary scheme and tie in those licensees who are not already participating.
	On the introduction of alcohol disorder zones, I can tell the House that the concept of the police asking for contributions from licensees to the cost of policing is not new in Stafford. Licensees at Zanzibars, the Litten Tree and what used to be called Props have all made voluntary contributions already. The police in Stafford sign and publish service level agreements so that there is no suggestion of any impropriety in their using their influence to sign people up to that arrangement. Perhaps we will not need an alcohol disorder zone in Stafford because such a policy has already been adopted voluntarily. That will not be so in some areas, in which such zones will therefore be necessary. In others, the very existence of that power will persuade people to behave reasonably.
	The situation in Stafford was born of a working partnership involving the police, the councils, CCTV and the licensees themselves. We should also remember trading standards, to which reference has been made and which have played an important role in dealing with the selling of alcohol to under-age people. Such partnerships also involve transport groups, such as minibus and taxi drivers, and night-time economy workers such as the security staff at pubs and clubs.
	Looking beyond the Bill, it is true that we need to support parents in the tough job that they face these days in bringing up youngsters. We need effective and timely treatments for alcohol and drug abuse, and better education and information. We need to build on the work that the Portman Group and alcohol groups throughout the countrysuch as ADSIS, the Alcohol and Drugs Service in Staffordshirealready do.
	Much is already being done. I agree that some of the cultures developing in this country are undesirable, but I want to join those who have sought to provide a counterbalancing view of our young people and our hope for the future. Just yesterday, I spent several hours with 600 Air Training Corps cadets on a field day in Stafford. Those young people, aged between 13 and 21, showed great ambition and talent and a responsible attitude to life. Just last week here in Parliament, I chaired a debate involving 60 year 8 pupils upstairs in Committee Room 10. Some great talent for the future was on display, and all 60 behaved very responsibly. The previous week, I worked alongside six volunteers who are developing an allotment for use by disabled adults in wheelchairs. We have an important choice to make about the cultures that we want to develop in this country. It is up to ourselves, the politicians, the media, the celebrities who have so much influence, and our community leaders to back the right horse.

Stephen Crabb: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to participate in this important debate. First, I want to put on record my congratulations to the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Lynda Waltho) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes) on their excellent maiden speeches, which were well delivered and enjoyable to listen to.
	While broadly welcoming the Bill as a whole, I am worried that there is an over-reliance on control measures, which do little to tackle the deep-seated cultural challenge of alcohol abuse among young people. As a nation, we work hard and play hard and, as a result, our night-time economy is booming. We have heard much in this afternoon's debate about the vast profits being made by some bars and clubs, but let us not forget the number of jobs created by those establishments, or that this is a legitimate business sector. The question was raised earlier how anyone could possibly enjoy themselves at these pubs and clubs, but with all due respect to the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), that is not a relevant question for the House. The fact remains that in almost every town centre on any Friday or Saturday night throughout the year, crowds of loud excited young people can be seen having a good time enjoying each other's company.
	The dark side, however, that merges so seamlessly with the positive side is the nuisance caused to residents by noise; the violence that sees young men being kicked unconscious in street fights; abusive men who go home drunk and punch their wives or girlfriends; and injuries sustained by drunk people through pranks and accidents. It includes vandalism and criminal damage; shop windows broken; urine and vomit in doorways; and the fear and intimidation that so easily engulfs a town centre when, to use the popular phrase, trouble kicks off.
	Unfortunately, the Government's response has been to pursue a long list of tough-sounding, headline-grabbing proposals intended to show that something is being done. That is why, as well as CCTV, we have ASBOs, a proposal to march drunken yobs to cashpoints, fixed penalty notices, drink banning orders, dispersal orders, alcohol disorder zones andthe latest, according to one of the broadsheets yesterdaythe idea of deploying the Army on the streets this summer. It is all about control, control, controland I do not believe that it will work. We will not tackle the binge drink culture in this country by imposing martial law on our town centres at night.
	Before throwing more legislation on the statute book, should we not instead be looking into renewed enforcement of existing laws? During the numerous nights that I have spent out with my local police force, not one police officer has told me that there were not enough sanctions available to enable them to tackle alcohol-related disorder. Without revisiting the arguments of the general election, I believe that we need an increase in police numbers and a renewed vigour in using legislation that is already in place.
	For example, local police officers told me directly that they simply do not have the manpower to start arresting everyone who is drunk and disorderly at the weekend. The time and labour required to process any such arrests would divert vital resources away from what they regard as the hotspots at the worst possible time in the evening. That may be one of the principal reasons behind the long-term fall in convictions for drunk and disorderly behaviour across the country. As one officer told me during a recent night shift spent monitoring Haverfordwest town centre at pub closing time, the best that current resources allow is for the police to keep the lid on the problem of binge drink disorder. Until we get to grips with the serious cultural issues that lie behind that behaviour, we will just carry on as a society throwing ever larger sums of money at enforcement and control just to keep a lid on it.
	The problem in this country stems from the fact that we have a culture where alcohol abuse is tolerated. In fact, in so many areas of popular culture, drinkingeven drunkennessis celebrated and joked about. That is one of the reasons why we are losing the war on alcohol abuse among young people. The fact isso many studies have confirmed itthat youngsters are being exposed to alcohol at an ever younger age and are drinking more in terms of units and more frequently.
	According to Alcohol Concern, by the age of 13, young people who drink alcohol already outnumber those who do not. That comes as no surprise in view of the findings of Professor Paul Willner of the university of Wales, Swansea. His research showed that 16-year-old boys and girls as young as 13 now have little difficulty in buying alcohol from a variety of vendors. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr.   Llwyd) was right to raise the issue of the sale of alcohol to minors. I await an answer to my written question on conviction rates for off-licences and stores that sell alcohol to young people.
	The World Health Organisation's European charter on alcohol, to which the UK is a signatory, states:
	All children and adolescents have the right to grow up in an environment protected from the negative consequences of alcohol consumption and, to the extent possible, from the promotion of alcoholic beverages.
	I should welcome the Minister's thoughts on how well she believes the Government are discharging their responsibilities under that charter.
	I hope that I shall be proved wrong, but part 1 seems to provide nothing more than a sticking plaster over our deep-seated problems of youth alcohol abuse. We await further details and further delivery of the Government's alcohol harm reduction strategy, and I look forward to more proposals in the coming months to add to the Bill's provisions.

Dawn Butler: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the Second Reading of this important Bill.
	The Opposition asked whether the Bill was necessary. Yes, it is necessary. It builds on some of the toughest legislation in the world, yet only yesterday my constituency suffered another shooting incident; one person died and two people are in hospital under police supervision: so I say again, yes, the Bill is necessary.
	Many measures are needed to deal with our growing gun crime culture. Although preventive measures are not outlined in the Bill, I am sure that my Government will address those issues soon. The Bill offers us a good start, however, by curbing the supply of guns on our streets immediately. I thank my Government for introducing the Bill and for responding effectively to deal with the increase in violent crime and antisocial behaviour that we face.
	When victims are confronted by a violent person holding a gun, the last thing on their mind is whether the gun is real. They are wondering whether they will survive the incident or whether they or a loved one will die. They are thinking of the anguish ahead, not whether the gun is real. A ban on imitation weapons is imperative; it should be strong and enforceable.
	The Opposition have said that we are trying to grab headlines. Which headlines? That we are tough on crime? I welcome such headlines. The Opposition have referred to other headlines that described the Government as over-zealous and said that we were trying to ban children's toys. That is ridiculous. No reasonable person could mistake a bright blue and yellow water pistol for a gun. That is not what the Bill is about.
	Since 2003, there has been a 66 per cent. increase in offences using imitation firearms. The Bill tackles the manufacture, importing and sale of realistic firearms, which is an important and necessary. However, I should have liked to see higher rates of punishment for such offences. A sentence of 12 months is not a strong enough message.
	I have some concerns about funding. Other Members, too, have expressed concern about how the measure is to be funded so that it can be enforced.
	There is also concern about age limits. There should be a universal age limit of 18 for all knives and guns. Anyone who legitimately needs to register at 17I cannot imagine who would want tocould be considered under the exception provisions, as they are for firearms registration. Knife crime has become more prevalent and it is harder to legislate against because people need knives in many professions; for example, carpet fitters, double glazers and chefs. However, the Bill considers carefully all aspects of knife use in our society.
	Under the Licensing Act 2003, Brent closed three establishments last year. X-ray machines were used to vet 200 patrons, 100 of whom were detained for possession of firearms, knives and class A drugs. At least two of those people were suspected of being drug dealers, and Brent is investigating with a view to seizing their assetsasset seizure is mentioned briefly in the Bill. The council has complained that the asset seizure procedure is slow, which is a shame because the quicker we seize the assets of criminals such as drug and gun dealers, the quicker we can reimburse that money to society for community projects. If we can show that criminals can be stripped of their assets, it might prevent others from following suit.
	The forfeiture clause in the central crime element of the Bill will ensure that any vehicle can be seized if suspected of being used for shipping human beingswomen and mento go into the sex industry. That is a very important part of the Bill because it will help the police by taking that vehiclewhether a van, a ship or a planeout of circulation.
	I shall quickly mention mobile phones. Some 73 per cent. of adults use mobile phones, compared with 33 per cent. in 1999. That is a huge increase in mobile phone use, which is why there has been an increase in theft. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) rightly said, we hope that the Bill will reduce mobile phone theft, by ensuring that the reprogramming of mobile phones becomes an offence.
	The Bill has been introduced because it is needed for intelligence gathering, and all parties will agree that that represents good governance. Yes, good governance in itself will not solve the growing problem of violent crime and antisocial behaviourgood housing, good jobs and good policing will helpbut it is needed, and we also need to look at our communities and ensure that they show an interest. Last week was neighbourhood watch week. I welcome the fact that Brent has the highest number of people involved in neighbourhood watch schemes. I opened a scheme last Saturday at Asda, and we need to promote further schemes such as that to ensure people are involved in making sure that our communities are safe.

David Jones: It is clear from the contributions from hon. Members on both sides of the House that violent disorder is a concern for hon. Members from all parts of the country. Certainly, violence on the streets of the towns in my constituency is regularly raised. In the time available to me, however, I should like to concentrate on two aspects of the Bill.
	First, under clause 34, the age limit for the purchase of knives will be raised from 16 to 18. I represent a semi-rural constituency in a relatively tranquil part of north Walesat least, it was tranquil until quite recently. During the past 12 months or so, we have experienced something of an explosion in knife crime. Sadly, there have been three fatal stabbings in my constituency during that period. One of them involved a young man called Ben Jones, a student with everything to look forward to, who was making his way to the local skate park. He was stabbed, quite gratuitously, by an older man, not by a young man, and to that extent, I echo the remarks of the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones). It is not always the youths who are responsible for crimes of violence.
	Simply to raise the age limit for the purchase of knives from 16 to 18 will add nothing to the legislation that is currently in place. Even the most moronic apprentice thug would realise that his mother's cutlery drawer in her kitchen contains an arsenal of knives that could be used for the purpose of inflicting serious injury on other people, and to that extent, I echo the remarks of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd). What we need is far more proactive policing, possibly by more officers, and, quite frankly, no compunction at all about stopping and searching people whom those officers suspect may be carrying knives.
	The other aspect that I should like to focus on is clause 35, which contains the powers for head teachers to search pupils for concealed weapons. Many hon. Members may be astonished that such powers do not already exist. Certainly, they are long overdue. In my constituency, I was recently informed by a head teacher that one of his pupils assaulted another with a blunt instrument, putting that pupil into casualty with a fractured skull. Subsequently, the head teacher immediately expelled the boy in question. The boy's parents appealed to the local education authority, which reinstated him, thus undermining the head teacher's authority irreparably and, of course, causing extreme concern to the parents of the boy who was so badly assaulted. The measure is certainly called for, so I compliment the Government to that extent, but it should be backed up with a power to allow head teachers immediately to exclude pupils who are found carrying dangerous weapons. Such pupils should have no right of appeal to the LEA, because the matter should be entirely at the discretion of the head teacher.
	I am worried that the Bill is modest in its execution, although lofty in its ambition. Although several of its measures might do something to quell the rising tide of violence on our streets in the evenings, overall it is really only tinkering with existing legislation. It would be far more appropriate to put more police officers on the streets, properly equipped to enforce the laws that we have now. To that extent, I am pessimistic that the Bill will achieve the objectives that it tries to secure.

Stephen Hesford: I have only six minutes in which to speak, so I shall curtail what I was going to say. I welcome this important Bill, for which I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Security and Community Safety, who recently visited my constituency and saw at first hand some of the good work that we are doing locally.
	I wondered whether several Opposition Members were being somewhat disingenuous, because I did not recognise some of their comments as being in keeping with what community support officers and my local area commander are able to do when policing alcohol-related incidents and disorder in my community. However, we can of course always do more, which is what the Bill is designed to do.
	As several hon. Members have said, the Bill is an attempt to build on the culture of respect that the Prime Minister described and to reintroduce that into our communities. I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister not to listen to the siren voices that seem to criticise the Government on the grounds that they are introducing yet another Bill, because I do not see it in that light at all. I reject the so-called Lord Woolf view that we are simply stacking up legislation; I think it somewhat disingenuous. The Bill will deal with the issue rather than just exploiting it, which is what my constituents want to happen.
	I do not know how many other hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall concentrate on only one element of the Bill. Hon. Members who served in the last Parliament will have read the early-day motion that I tabled on the use and possession of ball-bearing guns, which received the support of more than 150 Members. I tabled it because of the case of my then constituent, David Hazel. He was simply talking to his wife outside the front door of his house on one of our estates when a car pulled up which was completely unknown to Mr. Hazel and his family. The incident was probably a case of mistaken identity, but after a short exchange of words about nothing in particular, the driver got out of the car and shot Mr. Hazel in the back with a BB gun.
	I have written to the Home Office about banning the sale of BB guns, which was the subject of my early-day motion. It touches on two aspects of the Bill. BB guns can be frighteningly realistic and they are certainly cheap, yet they can be lethal. Unfortunately for Mr.   Hazela healthy young man in his prime with a young familythe ball-bearing that was fired out of the gun entered his spine and crippled him. That was a senseless act and he was blameless. The type of gun used in the offence is freely available. From my reading of the Bill, it seems that those guns will be as easy to obtain after its enactment as they are now. Perhaps we can debate that in Committee.
	I agree with the comments on air weapons. I ask the Minister to consider adding to clauses 26 and 27 and stiffening up their provisions. Other hon. Members mentioned licensing. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary talked about the difficulties that it might bring. I ask the Minister to reconsider this aspect of the Bill. I believe that that is important, as do the family and friends of my former constituent, David Hazel.

Iain Wright: I pay tribute to the excellent maiden speeches by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Lynda Waltho).
	I want to concentrate on measures to tackle alcohol-related violence and disorder. Thankfully, Hartlepool experiences little crime in relation to firearms, imitation firearms and knives. However, regretfully, the town knows all too well the problems associated with crime fuelled by drink.
	The Bill could have been drafted specifically to deal with the problems facing Hartlepool. Overall crime is down markedlyby something like a quarter in the past 12 months. Of the 17 wards in my constituency, more than half have crime figures below the national average. Hartlepool district is considered the most improving basic command unit in the country by the police standards unit and Her Majesty's inspectorate. That has been achieved by a passionate embracing of partnership working by multiple agencies. Yet I have to acknowledge that town centre violence in Hartlepool is still far too high. Of its 17 wards, the two that make up our town centre suffer from a crime rate that is more than twice the national average. Those two wards account for nearly 40 per cent. of all offences of violence against the person. Up to 70 per cent. of that violence is alcohol-related.
	The message that the statistics provide is clear: overall crime is falling in Hartlepool directly as a result of the   Government's legislation. The persistent problem, however, is violence and disorder arising from alcohol use in the town centre. Deal with that problem in legislation and the benefits will be huge. I sincerely believe that the Bill will play a decisive role in tackling the problems that my constituency faces. The introduction of alcohol disorder zones, where licensed premises will be required to contribute to the costs of dealing with alcohol-related disorder, are massively welcomed by me and my constituents. I will continue to push for all licensed premises to act responsibly and to avoid the need for compulsion, although I accept that that might be necessary.
	Environmental legislation and regulations are based on the polluter pays principle, whereby the organisation or individual responsible for inflicting damage on the environment bears the financial costs of clean-up. It is entirely right and proper that the principle should be extended and that the premises seen to be responsible for fuelling the drink-crazed mayhem in our town centres should be financially liable for the costs of policing the area. Time and time again officers in my area tell me that police resources on Friday and Saturday nights are focused almost exclusively on the town centre at the expense of estates and local neighbourhoods, where antisocial behaviour invariably occurs. Requiring premises to pay for policing will allow town centres to be safer while ensuring that other areas receive appropriate police attention and coverage.
	I am anxious and impatient to see the Bill on the statute book so that its measures directly benefit my constituents. I hope to do all I can to ensure that it is implemented quickly. I fully support the Bill.

Humfrey Malins: I begin, as always in these debates, by declaring an interest. I am a solicitor by background and I sit from time to time as a Crown court recorder and district judge.
	This has been a constructive and positive debate, with a great number of good speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the House. I thank those who have made their maiden speech today. The hon. Member for Stourbridge (Lynda Waltho) made an excellent maiden speech and we were pleased to hear all that she had to say. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes), in another excellent maiden speech, made a proper and gracious tribute to his predecessor. Like the hon. Lady, he demonstrated his affection for and familiarity with his constituency, its people and its concerns. He spoke about several issues relating to drugs and rightly pointed out the importance of family support in that connection. We look forward with great interest to his and the hon. Lady's future contributions.
	There have been positive speeches from both sides of the Chamber. I thank in particular my hon. Friends the Members for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones), for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Gauke), for South-West Norfolk (Mr. Fraser), for Rugby and Kenilworth (Jeremy Wright), for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mr. Crabb), for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood), for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) and for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) for their valuable and thoughtful contribution to our debate.
	Earlier today, my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) rightly highlighted the enormous problem, evident to us all, of rising violent crime and crime associated with drink and drugs, which type of crime is almost out of control in many urban areas. The Bill, which has a rather grand title, is designed to address some of those problems. We do not oppose the Billindeed, we support parts of it. It is well intentioned, but it is typical of the Government in this respect: its title is impressive and grabs a headline, but its contents are unlikely to achieve the stated purpose of reducing violent crime. We have lost count of the number of initiatives that Labour has launched in the criminal justice field. Acts of Parliament run into dozens, all of which suggest that we have a Government who are giving the impression of being concerned and of taking action when, in truth, they are barely scratching the surface of the real problems that we face.
	Let me give one striking example of a Government initiative that was a shambles and that, I am sure, the Minister would prefer to forget. A few years ago, when there were delays in the court system, Downing street decided that rapid justice was the answer to every problem and set up a system of night-time courts. Defendants arrested in the evening would be dealt with immediately by district judges, who were obliged to sit at Bow street all night with their staff and with jailers present at considerable cost. Those who knew anything about the criminal justice system thought that the idea was ludicrous and said sobut no, the Government and their advisers knew best.
	What happened? The Minister knows full well. Predictably, most of the defendants turned up drunk and were not fit enough to enter a plea, and their case had to be adjourned for days. Others said that they wanted an adjournment for legal representation. Others still would not enter a plea until they had received, as was their right, advance information about the case against them. The number of cases actually disposed of was minuscule and each one was dealt with at huge expense to the taxpayer. Hastily, but quietly, that much trumpeted new initiative was abandoned. One more initiative by Labour in the criminal justice field, one more failure.
	Let us consider the Bill with the grand title and see what it does. In large part, it addresses problems that are covered by existing law, leaving many of us to suspect that much of it is unnecessary. Part 1 introduces the drinking banning order, which imposes a prohibition on a person to protect others from criminal or disorderly conduct by him when he is under the influence of drink. We have acknowledged that binge drinking among young men and women has rocketed in recent years, leading to an extremely alarming situation. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South referred to the problem. Crime connected to drinking has also rocketed.
	Do we have enough laws to deal with the problem? Offences already on the statute book include drunkenness on a highway, the offence of being drunk and disorderly and offences under the Public Order Act 1986 relating to the use of offensive words, behaviour and conduct. The existing law gives the police many options on alcohol-related violence, and they can charge someone with common assault, actual bodily harm or, in serious cases, grievous bodily harm, riot and affraythe list goes on and on. Moreover, the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 makes provision for dispersal orders, which give the police specialised local powers to remove people from an area and ban them if they are engaged in alcohol-related antisocial behaviour.
	Have the existing powers to ban drinking in designated public areas been forgotten? Courts can impose any conditions in an antisocial behaviour order that are necessary to prevent the conduct that the Bill aims to tackle. In my experience, they impose a great number of wide restrictions and conditions. We are therefore simply adding to the large and complex range of offences and possible orders at our disposal. I only hope that the new measure will not cause even more confusion among the police and courts. Is anyone else troubled by the part of the Bill that calls for the greater involvement of local authorities, and thus more bureaucracy, in introducing drink-banning orders? At best, that will be slow and cumbersome and, at worst, could result in more Government interference.
	What is the answer to the undoubted problem that those provisions seek to address? We could and should put the police where they belongon the streets in areas where the problems occurin much greater numbers. We should ask them to stamp out those problems very harshly indeed, and not stay behind their desks completing the paperwork that the Government have made them deal with. In my experience, CCTV is everywhereit can even be found on the walls of the Chamber. In the courts, however, if someone asks whether CCTV was in operation on a particular night, they will be told that it was not working properly. Even when it does work, the quality is so bad that the viewer cannot see who is committing the offence. We should therefore improve the quality of CCTV.
	Police should use the existing laws that give them many options to deal with such crime and enforce them with vigour. We should encourage the courts to punish hard where punishment is deserved, and that should be linked to the prosecution of far more pubs and clubs that sell to under-18s or drunks. That wicked practice is on the increase, but the number of prosecutions of immoral pubs and clubs is pathetically low. There should also be a linked increase in prosecution of retail outlets that sell alcohol to under-18s, which is already an offence, although one would not think so from the Bill. We need much greater education about alcohol, and we should think again about 24-hour drinking. If we do so, we may begin to turn the tide.
	Anyone who spends time in the criminal courts as an observer or in any other capacity will know that the number of crimes involving the use of a knife is increasing. More and more young people are carrying knives in a public place. I have recently tabled a parliamentary question about the number of pupils who carry knives, to which I received the reply that a survey last year showed that 1 per cent. of children aged 11 to 16 in England and Wales
	had at some time in the last year carried a knife in school for offensive reasons, and 2 per cent. for 'defensive' reasons.
	That means that thousands of our children are taking knives into school, and it is a horrible statistic. How do the Government approach it? In two ways. First, they raise the age at which knives can legally be purchased, to which we cannot object, but I am not sure it will be effective. Next, they introduce powers for teachers to search pupils in school for knivesnot unwelcome in itself, but fraught with potential difficulties.
	Does not the House realise that there is existing law to cover a knife on school premises? Section 139B of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 makes it an offence to have a knife or any other weapon on school premises, and a constable already has power to enter a school premises to search any person for any such article and to arrest them. An interesting question for the MinisterI wonder whether she will be able to answer it tonightis this: how many times in the past couple of years have constables, acting on information received from a school, entered the school premises, searched a pupil and brought a prosecution against that pupil which has resulted in a conviction and a meaningful punishment under section 139B of the Criminal Justice Act 1988? If thousands of children are taking knives into school, as the evidence suggests, but only a few have been charged under that section, what does that say about existing law enforcement? If, on the other hand, they have all been charged and convicted, how does that point to the need to introduce yet more law?
	Finally, a word or two on the issues surrounding airguns and imitation firearms. Yes, we welcome clause 27. It is important that we have the offence of firing an air weapon beyond premises. It could have been introduced in an earlier statute but was not. In the context of imitation firearms, the point about the overselling of legislation, which was well illustrated by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere, can be made. Referring to the use of realistic imitation firearms to threaten others, the Government state in the notes to the Bill:
	There is a range of existing offences and controls in relation to firearms but they have not proved sufficient to halt this trend.
	Of course they have not. Legislation on its own does nothing. It is a matter of proper enforcement of existing legislation.
	The use of firearms and imitation firearms in pursuance of crime is increasing and it is a very disturbing trend indeed, but the Minister should remember that there are already a dozen existing statutes that allow the police to deal with those who commit offences with both real and imitation firearms. We need point only to the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, which has been law for over a year and is intended to deal precisely with the problems of possession of imitation firearms in a public place. Why not give it time, to see how it works out?
	Let there be no confusion. Using an imitation firearm in the course of crime is treated very harshly by the courts, and rightly so. It is a subject for another day, but the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr.   Denham) put his finger on some interesting points about replica guns and the difficulties involved. We must discuss the matter again in the House.
	The Government should address the problem of why the number of prosecutions against offenders with imitation firearms is so woefully low, compared with the number of such crimes that have been reported. I fear that those responsible people who carry out lawful activitiesthose who collect and deal in replica weapons as their hobby, those youngsters who play innocently with their BB gun, their cap guns and their cowboy guns, those many thousands who enjoy the sport of airsoftmay be punished under the Bill. Damaging them and their lawful activities will not alter the mindset of one single criminal. Who suffers most as a result of crime? Not us in the Chamber, not those who earn well and live in decent areas. Rather, it is the poor and the vulnerable, who are condemned to live in poor quality estates in our urban areas wracked with crime, who are the victims.
	If the Government really want to cut crime, they should not simply listen to their advisers and pass more laws. They should listen to those at the sharp end of crime whose advice is simple: put more police on the streets; introduce a genuine zero-tolerance policy on all crime, including low-level crime; free the police from bureaucracy; maintain discipline at school; improve our appalling detection rates, which get worse by the year; and punish heavily those tens of thousands who regularly skip bail and who laugh at the court system and reduce it to chaos. None of that advice involves more legislation; it is all about proper law enforcement.
	Let politicians listen to the decent, law-abiding people who live in lawless communities that are fractured by crime. Those people look to us to restore harmony and peace to their lives, which have got worse and worse in the past seven years. They do not look to us for more legislation, more headlines and more initiatives. They want practical action and real enforcement. In short, they need our help, and we must never fail them.

Hazel Blears: We have had an excellent debate with contributions from 27 hon. Members, which tells us that the subject is popular and that it resonates in hon. Members' constituencies.
	I join other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Lynda Waltho) and the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes) on their excellent maiden speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge discussed her trips out with local police officers and neighbourhood watchMr. Timmins from Stourbridge will remain in my heart. She also paid tribute to her predecessor, Debra Shipley, whose work, particularly in relation to children, will be remembered by many hon. Members on both sides of the House. My hon. Friend said that Stourbridge has seized her heart; she seized our hearts tonight, and I am sure that we will hear more from her.
	The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate paid a generous tribute to his predecessor, Stephen Twigg, for whom we all have the greatest respect for his contribution to his community, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will make a similar contribution.
	I am delighted that hon. Members from both sides of the House support many of the provisions in the Bill. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) welcomed drinking banning orders, the offences concerning concealed weapons and the work on imitation firearms. Along with a number of hon. Members, he raised the issue of the causes of crime. I gently remind him that the state of this country's economy when 3 million people were unemployed was a major contributor to some of the problems experienced by our poorest communities. We have heard a lot tonight from Conservative Members about the poorest communities, but I ask them not to have collective amnesia and to remember our economy's current success.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) raised some important points. He is a particular champion of trying to get the hospitality industry to contribute to the extra costs of policing, and I have no doubt that we will discuss some of the issues that he raised about definitions in Committee.
	I welcome the broad support of the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) for many of the provisions in the Bill. He discussed how we can encourage voluntary activity. We want to see voluntary action, which is currently happening in a number of areas, on binge drinking in addition to the clear-cut alcohol disorder zones. He is right to raise the issue of sales on the internet, and we will continue to work on that matter over the summer and to debate it in Committee.
	I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) raised the work that has been done in Manchester on tackling the whole range of antisocial behaviour. I commend the police and others in Manchester, who are pioneers in being on the side of the decent people in their community. On those issues, local people support action against the minority and the protection of the rights of the majority.
	The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) raised the important issue of extra protection for those who serve the public. We have not gone down the path of creating a separate criminal offence, but we are determined that attacking people who serve the public will be an aggravating factor, and we want to work on that matter with the Sentencing Guidelines Council. The definition public service worker is very narrow, because some people who work in the private sector actually serve the public. I think that the question should be, Is someone serving the public?, rather than focusing on their particular employment.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) raised some important issues. I was delighted to visit her during the election. I know that she regularly goes out with her police service. She is right to mention planning in town centres. We need a wider mix of premisesnot just premises targeted at 18 to 25-year-oldsso that perhaps some of us older people will feel comfortable in our town centres as well. Happy slapping can be dealt with under existing offences about actual bodily harm, but my hon. Friend is right to say that it is a worrying phenomenon and we have to take it seriously.
	I welcome the general support of the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone) for the proposals. She talked about differentiating between good and bad licensees. I am sure that she knows that we have been working on an accreditation scheme like Manchester's best bar none scheme whereby people get credit, endorsement and acknowledgement for running their premises in a proper way. We will look carefully into whether we can incorporate that into the Bill.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) referred to the way in which knives and guns are marketed. Many Members will have seen such information in leaflets and on the internet. It is already an offence to market knives in a way that could encourage combat. I share my hon. Friend's concern about whether that is being enforced properly and ensuring that we crack down on it. Some of the advertisements that I have seen are of great concern. I am pleased that he raised the issue.
	The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Gauke) said that we have a modest set of proposals none of which he has any real objection to. That is fairly grudging support, but I welcome it none the less. He talked about the need for more police. He is relatively new to the House, but I am sure that he knows that under Labour we have an extra 13,000 police officers while under the Tories we had 1,100 fewer. I am sure that he will find that figure imprinted on his brain as we have these debates on a regular basis.
	I was delighted to hear the contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). She has an excellent record on campaigning against imitation weapons, and I am pleased that we have been able to deal with that in the Bill.
	The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd)I have got better at saying that as time has gone onraised the important issue of enforcing our existing law. I am pleased to say that the number of offences that are being enforced has gone up in the past year to 18 months. We have had some massive enforcement campaigns, and we are right to press the police to enforce. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the marketing of alcopops. The issue of advertising and celebrities will be important in taking this forward.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) raised an issue that she has raised on several occasionsensuring that penalties are right for people acquiring alcohol that is then passed on to young people. As she will know, it is now an offence as we have made it a fixed-penalty notice. However, we will continue to press forward in that respect.
	The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Jeremy Wright) talked about resources for policing. He will knowor if he does not now, he will over the next few monthsthat under this Government we have had a 30 per cent. increase in funding for police officers; that is a 21 per cent. real-terms increase after inflation.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Jeff Ennis) has had a tremendous record on campaigning on airguns for several years now; I pay tribute to him for that. We have put measures in the Bill, and we are in discussions, particularly with Scottish Ministers, about whether there is further work that we can do. My hon. Friend has made a genuine and significant contribution to work in this area.
	I was delighted to visit my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) just a few months ago. At last we have the measures on mobile phone reprogramming that will help to crack down on mobile phone theft.
	The hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mr. Fraser) asked about fixed-penalty notices. About 100,000 have been issued of which 75 per cent. have been paid. They are a great success. They save the police a huge amount of time in terms of bureaucracy and paperwork and have been welcomed enormously.
	I was pleased to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), as well as the licensee of the Swan hotel, during the general election. I did not have the pleasure of going to Zanzibar, but perhaps I might be able to visit him there on a future occasion. He mentioned pubwatch schemes, which are very important in tackling these issues. There is an excellent pubwatch scheme in Workington, where the police are working tremendously hard with the local council in making a difference.
	The hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones) told us about some very worrying events that had taken place in his constituency, particularly the three fatal stabbings. The measures on knives in the Bill build on some pretty serious legislation that we already have in place. We have banned 19 different kinds of bladed weapons. We recently banned stealth knives, flick knives having been banned for a long time.
	I was pleased to visit the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford) during the election campaign. I saw at first hand the reassurance that the police provide on the ground and the fact that local people feel much better for it. He asked us to look again at air weapons and we will continue to take the matter forward.
	On the speech of the hon. Member for Woking (Mr.   Malins), I want to put paid now to the idea that thousands of children are carrying knives in our schools. That is not true. Only a tiny minority carry knives but we want to ensure that we protect the majority of young people who could be put at risk.
	I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Steve McCabe) for his work, especially on highlighting the problems with internet sales of knives and guns. He was working on that before many others and he has helped to push our policy making on the subject. I reassure him that we do not want alcohol disorder zones to undermine in any way the excellent regeneration projects throughout the country. They will ensure that we get a grip on the problem and help our regeneration to have even more impact.
	I want to set the debate in a little context. Although we have said a great deal about violent crime tonight, it is in the context of a 30 per cent. reduction in crime in the past eight years. There are 500,000 fewer people getting burgled than under the previous Conservative Government. Vehicle crime is down by 30 per cent. and robbery is down by 25 per cent. from its peak four years ago. All that has been tackled by direct, focused action from the police, using intelligence, targeting the hot spots and the prolific and priority offendersvery smart policing. The police are working ever closer with their partners, especially in local government. They work together to protect elderly people, provide better street lighting and more CCTV.
	However, it is true that crime trends are changing. We are moving from acquisitive crimeburglary and robberyto more crime that revolves around behaviour, involving drink, drugs and violence. That is the reason for the Bill.
	The measure will help the police and local authorities. It will give them the powers that they need to make another step change in the fight against crime. The Government are determined to keep ahead of the criminals and ensure that we are on the side of the decent, law-abiding majority, especially the decent young people who are often the victims of antisocial behaviour and violent crime. As well as giving the police the powers to do the job, we are trying hard to do one of   the most difficult things that Government ever have to do: try to change people's behaviour. We want people to think twice and know that it is simply not worth it to carry on behaving violently towards others.
	We want people to realise that it is not cool to carry a gun and to know that there are ways to resolve conflict other than using knives or being violent. That is why we are working with the Department for Education and Skills, why we have projects such as the Connected Fund and why we are working with Mothers Against Guns. The educational and preventive work is important to us because we are trying to change behaviour. It is difficult but we managed it on drink-driving and wearing seat belts. Some of those measures were fought tooth and nailpeople said that they would never work. I therefore genuinely believe that we can help to change behaviour.
	We have witnessed two of the best examples of changing behaviour in the Chamber today. I listened with increasing fascination to the speeches of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden and the hon. Member for Winchester. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden used to have a reputation as the hammer of the right but tonight, we saw caring, compassionate Conservatism. He talked about the causes of crime and championing the poor. Tonight was a revelation to me. I am not sure to which audience he is trying to appealperhaps it is not Labour Members but has more to do with the hon. Gentlemen who are sitting behind him. However, we have seen a tremendous change in the right hon. Gentleman's behaviour.
	We have also witnessed behavioural change in the hon. Member for Winchester. He used to be the voice of civil liberties and the defender of individuals' rights, but today he was talking tough on crime. We heard him supporting our measures to tackle violent crime. We heard his comments on drinking banning orders, alcohol disorder zones and good behaviour.
	I do not want the waste of life that happens through knife attacks, gun crime and alcohol. The Bill will help us to tackle that and I welcome hon. Members' contributions.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read a Second time.

VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTION BILL (PROGRAMME)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 83A(6) (Programme motions),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Violent Crime Reduction Bill:
	Committal
	1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.
	Proceedings in Standing Committee
	2. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 25th October 2005.
	3. The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
	Consideration and Third Reading
	4. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
	5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
	6. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.
	Other Proceedings
	7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.[Mr. Heppell.]
	Question agreed to.

VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTION BILL [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Violent Crime Reduction Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of such money under any other Act.[Mr. Heppell.]
	Question agreed to.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Mr. Heppell]

Richard Taylor: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me this opportunity to speak on this incredibly important and wide subject. It has nothing to do with my own constituency in particular, but I believe that it is of interest to everyone in the House. I welcome the new Minister to his position. I shall give him a fairly easy run, as I fear that I shall overstep my allocated time because I have so much to say. Also, there will not be many questions for him to answer because I want to make my points to a much wider forum than just the small number of Members who remain in the House.
	After being re-elected as an independent Member, my thoughts turned to the previous independent who managed to sit through more than one term. He was, of course, A. P. Herbert, the hon. Member for Oxford University. In reading his book, Independent Member, I noticed many parallels and many things on which I agree with him, and I should like to give the House a brief quote from it. During the terrible days of Munich, he wrote:
	I have even thought that, on great occasions where the parties were furiously raging together, the votes of Independents (cast with, of course, more conscience) might be as straws in the wind and show the party leaders which way the pure air of free opinion blows. Some horrid pride here, no doubt: but at least no 'levity' or lack of conscience.
	I should like to think that, because I speak as an independent, without any party axe to grind, my comments will be taken in the spirit of helpfulness in which they are made, although there are some fairly marked warnings coming up.
	I cannot speak without paying tribute to the undoubted improvements that have occurred in the NHS. I am thinking particularly of cancer and cardiac care, and of the public health White Paper, which brings to the fore such subjects as obesity and sexual health. I pay tribute to the formation of the Healthcare Commission, and to the move away from star ratings and targets towards standards, which will be less prescriptive and allow managers, in particular, to spend less time thinking about targets and more about what happens to the patient. I congratulate the Government on the institution of patients forums and overview and   scrutiny committees, on the independent reconfiguration panel and on the paper, Keeping the NHS local.
	I want to dwell on some of the potential risks to further progress. They include the risk of alienating staff and patients by implementing major changes that have not been properly thought through and whose long-term consequences have not really been considered. In a recent edition of the British Journal of Health Care Management, Professor Alan Maynard of York university begins his article, which was written just before the general election and is entitled Heading for the cliff edge?, in this way:
	The Labour Governmentif re-electedseems intent on maintaining its evidence-free policies that have a potential to destabilise the NHS.
	That is a salutary warning.
	I want to talk about three subjects: choice, continuity of care and communication, and increasing use of the market and the private sector. No one is in any doubt that what patients want is prompt access to quality care as near home as is possible, so no one is against choice. Before the market, there was infinite choice in terms of referral, at least for doctors. Whether the doctors passed the choice on to all their patients, I am not entirely sure, but I know that some did. Since the market, choice has been severely constrained by contracts. Even when I retired, everyone working in the health service knew of   the tremendous problems with extra-contractual referrals, which were dreadfully difficult to organise.
	The Government's emphasis on choice is welcome, but I want to say something about choose and book. Along with other members of the Health Committee, Ivisited Richmond house to see a mock-up demonstration of how it would work. I could not help thinking back to the time when my hospital organised a mock-up demonstration of a brand-new computer system that would revolutionise monitoring in our intensive care unit. The model worked beautifully. We bought it and plugged it in, but it did not work on patients and we had to ask for our money back. I am terribly worried that these models that look so marvellous may not work as well as promised.
	Choose and book has been very badly sold to the professions. The use of that method for 50 per cent. of GP referrals by October is out of the question. Will the Government at least agree to a delay? There is no urgencythere are at least four years in which they can get things right.
	This is the ideal subject for a pilot trial. I have spoken to my local primary care trust. It knows that most practices resist the idea, but it tells me that at least five practices in my county, Worcestershire, would be willing to undergo pilot trials. There would have to be a firm set of questions to answer, there would have to be a time scale and the trials would have to be allowed to finish. Many NHS trials in the past have been scrapped before they were finished. Local hospitals would need time in which to get their act together so that they could actively compete. The Government must help local hospitals to focus their resources in local services.
	My second warning relates to continuity of care and communication. Most local patient complaintsI receive a good many from further afield, although I try not to deal with them when they come from other Members' constituentsare based on a lack of communication between clinical staff and patients and their families, or between hospital staff and GPs. Those difficulties have become worse and worse since the introduction of the shift system. The position is described graphically in a recent article in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine headed, A post-take ward round, by the professor of medicine at University college London. It states:
	Our round starts on the coronary care unit and the group consists of a night team, a day team, some of yesterday's team and a cardiologist . . . The number of doctors on the round has increased but the chances of any one doctor knowing the full course of the patient from admission from post-take round is virtually nil. On the other hand, the junior doctors come into contact with many different consultants and the consultants get to know most of the junior staff. An advance? Not in terms of continuity of care or team spirit, but perhaps as we get used to working in shifts these problems will resolve.
	That worries me, because the spin-off for the patient is that, time and again, they do not know who they are under and whom to ask, and they leave with unanswered questions.
	I hope that the Healthcare Commission will pick up on that matter in its complaints handling and deal with it. Is slavish following of the European working-time directive correct? Trainees are beginning to speak out against the current scheme. I shall give a few useful quotes from trainees themselves in a recent edition of Hospital Doctor. A registrar in general medicine said:
	There is no continuity of care any more. You might meet a patient at 6 pm, go home at 9 pm and don't follow them through, which affects training, as you miss out on seeing the whole spectrum of complications.
	A specialist registrar in general surgery said:
	My training is affected as I am doing about 20 per cent. less elective surgery and I'd say up to 80 per cent. of my colleagues would support going back to the old style of on-call.
	A specialist registrar in gastroenterology said:
	I have calculated I've lost 25 per cent. of endoscopy experience, do 25 per cent. fewer ward rounds and get to 30 per cent. fewer clinics. The only reason I feel confident is because I had a couple of years under the old system.
	A week or two later, the leader writer of Hospital Doctor wrote:
	Most of the trainees I talk to still see medicine as their vocation and are prepared to balance personal demands with improved training and service delivery, even if that means a few hours more work. But you don't hear that important voice in the working time debate, which is a shame, because it just might help make it workable.
	There is a feeling at the moment that we can revolt in some ways against Europe. I would very much like to see a revolt against the European working time directive and some compromise that made it a little more workable.
	I move on to my third warning, which is the most important. It is about the rapid extension of the NHS market and the increasing use of the private sector. Most staff and patientsI still have contacts with a lotwould prefer short-term use of the private sector while the NHS is strengthened. Lots has been written recently about independent sector treatment centres. The fear is that they will cherry-pick the easy cases, removing them from NHS hospitals that would use them for training.
	Follow-up is a puzzle. Who is going to deal with the complications that occur in those independent sector treatment centres? What is the cover at weekends and during holidays? How will they be staffed? Will it be by robbing other countries of staff? We have examples of recruitment agencies advertising for as many as 30 doctors from central European countries and South Africa, to say nothing of nurses, so we are going to have an unstable short-term work force.
	Another worry, which I have not had time to check and I am sure the Minister will look into, is accreditation. I am told that, in some countries, accreditation is rather less stringent than in this country and that a professor may accredit his juniors to work under him, rather than them working as individual responsible consultants elsewhere. If that is the case and those people are being accepted into this country to work unsupervised, that is worrying.
	The thing that bothers me is that, as soon as a consultant objects to the NHS using the private sector more and more, the response from most health service managers and many MPs is to think that consultants are interested only in the money in their pockets and that they would condemn anything that affects that. In my career, I did very little in the way of private medicine and knew very few colleagues who abused the system. That is backed up by a recent article in the Health Service Journal, where a former NHS finance director wrote that he had met
	very few NHS people who are genuinely in it for the money. One reason the new consultant contract has proved so expensive is that we now count time that was previously given for free.
	Professor Wendy Savage, a well-known critic of the establishment, writes that most health professionals are motivated
	by altruism and concern for patients' best interests. They have survived decades of underfunding followed by constant administrative change only to find that the money being put into the NHS is being siphoned off to the private sector.
	The NHS is incredibly precious to people and to its professionals. There is tremendous resistance to increasing use of the market and of the private sector at advantageous terms. With exceptions, professionals are not good at protecting the NHS. They are very short of weapons. Doctors and nurses cannot strike effectively. There have been attempts in the past to work to rule but these just did not work because whatever is done impacts on the patients. I feel that the Government know that there are no real weapons.
	The NHS Consultants Association, which has no axe to grind about private work, produced a policy statement and a manifesto. The statement said that each new policy initiative
	should be fully assessed and where possible piloted before general introduction. Its effects should be monitored with particular reference to longer term consequences . . . .There is no evidence that the enforced purchase of services from private institutions provides more efficient or effective health care than would investing the same funds in the NHS.
	The manifesto stated:
	The aim should be that essential additional funding is used for patient care and not wasted in market bureaucracy such as billing, invoicing and marketing, nor in the diversion of public funds to private profit.
	At first hearing, we welcomed the reports that the Secretary of State would listen, but at the same time she has promised to keep her foot on the accelerator. One wonders what hope there is for a change of pace or direction. Listening is not the end. Shakespeare, as always, has it succinctly and absolutely correctly:
	It is the disease of not listening, the malady of not marking, that I am troubled withal.
	The malady of not marking means not acting on what one has heard, and this could be desperately important.
	To whom should the Secretary of State listen? She should listen to patients, forum members, the Patients Association and obviously the professionsnot only the BMA and the RCN, but royal colleges, the Academies of the Medical Royal Colleges, the Hospital Consultants and Specialists Association and the NHS Consultants Association.
	I very much welcome the reports that the Secretary of State will try to go incognito into hospitals and theatres, gowned so that no one recognises her. I hope that that will be possible, because talking to people without civil servants and hospital managers would give a true picture. Why should she listen? She should do so because the ultimate weapon of the ordinary person is the ballot box. As several Labour Members have suggested, the introduction of market pressures into health and education is in flat conflict with our traditional values. The power of the ballot box is emphasised absolutely by my presence in this place.
	I do not know how today's leader in The Guardian managed to be so prescient as to write:
	If the threats to shut down Kidderminster hospital's accident and emergency department lost Labour its seat in the town in 2001, what is the government's new competitive health market going to do in the 2009 election with hospital departments and wards being closed up and down the country?
	The Government must wake up, because people are beginning to grasp what is going on. The leader in The Guardian continued:
	Labour's plan is far more radical than the internal market that the Conservatives introduced in 1991.
	The Government have done so much good for the NHS. Ministers must pause, listen and act now, before it is too late.

Liam Byrne: I congratulate the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) on securing this debate and on contributing to health debates in this House over the years. I listened very carefully to what he had to say, because I suspect that after a lifetime's service to the medical profession, he knows a few things about the practice of medicine that I, being so new to this post, do not. Nevertheless, let me try to respond to the issues that he raised, and in so doing to set out why I believe that the Government have the right approach to modernising one of our most importantif not the most importantnational institutions. I hope to be able to provide some comfort in respect of some of the points that he raised.
	The NHS is a cherished and much respected institution and we all want to see it succeed in future. Over the last few yearsand in the manifesto that we presented to the electorate in Maywe have put in place the reforms to ensure the future success of the NHS, so that it becomes a service fit for the 21st century that we can be proud of. We believe that that service must remain true to two founding principles: care provided on the basis of need, not wealth; and each person having the same rights as everyone else.
	Five years into our programme of reformthe NHS planwe have already achieved a great deal. How do we know? We need look no further than three areas of delivery: staffing, waiting times and health outcomes. The hon. Gentleman mentioned staff, and today more doctors and nurses are working in the NHS than ever. There are 21 per cent. more staff overall, 21 per cent. more general practitioners and 44 per cent. more consultants. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the risk of changes alienating them. One development that will be important in making sure that that does not happen is the introduction of Agenda for Change and of the new GP and consultant contracts, which show that we are now investing properly in our staff.
	Of course, achieving continuity of care will always be a challenge, but we must balance the issues that the hon. Gentleman pointed out against the right of every patient not to have a doctor who is tired. The introduction of the working time directive presents an opportunity to modernise, but we must of course pay heed to the hon. Gentleman's warningto ensure that we do not just comply, but comply safely.
	As a result of the new capacity that we have put in place, backed by the biggest hospital building programme in history, we have slashed waiting times. In-patient waits have fallen to nine months and will be down to six months by the end of this year. Already, nobody waits more than three months for coronary bypass grafts and cataract surgery. More than 19 out of 20 accident and emergency patients are now seen within four hours; the majority are out in less than two hours. On top of this, new services are transforming access, giving patients faster and more convenient access to treatment. Some 6 million people have already attended NHS walk-in centres, and 15 million patients a year are contacting NHS Direct. Our goal, however, is to go further even than this by 2008. Our target is that no one waits longer than 18 weeks from GP referral for their hospital treatment.
	All thisincreased staff and better waiting timesis good news when we judge our record against what is probably the stiffest test of all, to which the hon. Gentleman alluded: what is happening to health outcomes. Here, too, there is good news. Premature deaths from cancer, coronary heart disease and suicide continue to fall. In fact, the number of premature deaths from lung cancer among British men is falling faster than in any other country. All this has been possible because we have backed our belief in the national health service with the reality of sustained, record real-terms investment. I thank the hon. Gentleman for pointing out what a difference that has made not just to the country, but to his own community in Wyre Forest and Kidderminster. From 200304 to 200708, we are increasing expenditure by 7.3 per cent., on average, over and above the rate of inflation. That compares with afigure of just 3 per cent. under the previous Administration.
	Through this new investment, we have built the capacity to reduce waiting times, we have brought in more staff and we are giving patients faster access to high-quality care. As the hon. Gentleman adroitly pointed out, the challenge now changes, because with the new investment we have started to transform the NHS so that it becomes a truly patient-led health service. We want an NHS that treats every patient in the way they want to be treated and in the way that we ourselves and our own families would want to be treated.
	The hon. Gentleman made reference to the need to listen, and I could not agree more. We will simply not deliver a patient-centred NHS unless we take seriously the business of listening to patients, their carers and NHS staff. There is no better illustration of our commitment not just to listen but to respond than our reforms to ensure that choice is a reality for everyone in this country. People told us that they wanted more   choice and control over their health care and services, and the hon. Gentleman agrees. They did so overwhelmingly. In 2003, something like three quarters of the sample said that they wanted to be more involved in decisions about their condition and treatmentand this was not a theoretical survey. In the coronary heart disease choice scheme piloted in London, about 86 per cent. of patients said that they would recommend it to other patients. What is more, early evidence from those pilots shows strong support for choice from patients of all social groups.
	If choice is so important for patients, I believe that we are duty bound to respond. That is why increasing patient choice is at the heart of our programme of reform and why we are committed to giving people more choice across the entire pathway of their carechoice in the hospital they go to, choice in how they access medicines and primary care, choice in maternity services and, yes, choice over end-of-life care. That future is already becoming a reality. From the end of this year, patients referred to hospital will be able to choose from at least four providers, and by 2008 they will be free to choose any provider that meets NHS standards at NHS cost.
	As the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, two important innovations support the new future. The first is the development of the choose and book service to help patients and GPs look at the choices available to them. It is a powerful way of giving patients an informed choice and of enabling both patients and GPs to manage their appointments themselves. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman by reminding him that thousands of clinical and other staff were involved in developing the pilots. Early evidence among the 53 sets of GPs involved has been positive. That is why the Government are confident that choose and book will work. The hon. Gentleman's expertise is welcome and I shall ensure that his advice is factored in.
	The second important innovation is the revolution in the provision of information made available to people as they take health decisions. To support that ambition, we are taking forward a three-year national strategy to bring information into the 21st century. By giving people the right information at the right time with the support that they need to use it, we will go a great deal of the distance towards creating a true partnership between the patient and the health care professional.
	That said, the biggest difference to many people served by the NHS, particularly to those with long-term conditions, will come from the mainstreaming of the expert patients programmea generic, lay-led self-management programme for people living with long-term conditions. I was pleased to see that we committed ourselves in our manifesto to trebling the investment in the EPP. The EPP shows how we are listening to patients and responding to their desire to take more control, and that theme of listening will characterise our work over the next Parliament. Later this year, we will be rolling out a national programme of consultation with patients, staff and the general public about the future of hospital care in this country. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will make a contribution to that, as he has a great deal to offer. The message is that we want patients and staff working together to shape the future of our health service.
	Clearly, we have made a good start in transforming the NHS, but we know that we still have a long way to go. We are only five years into our 10-year programme of reform and we will not let the pace of reform slacken. The hon. Gentleman mentioned independent procurement, but that involves only about 1.5 per cent. of the total number of procedures carried out in the NHS, rising to about 3 per cent. in a couple of years' time. I agree with much of what he said: we must get our procurement and treatment model right if we are to make progress.
	Madam Deputy Speaker, we will not achieve a future national health service of which we can be proud without the hard work and dedication of NHS staff. We know that our staffdoctors, nurses, physios, scientists, paramedics, porters, receptionistsare the foundation of the NHS and we know how committed they are to giving their patients high-quality care. I know that many of these changes that we have mentioned this evening are already making a difference to health care in and around Kidderminster and Wyre Forest. Only by working with patients and with our staff, in partnership and backed by new investment, will we deliver our vision of an NHS that really meets the needs of our modern societya truly world-class NHS, of which yet another generation will be truly proud.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.